LIBEAEY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


No.  Case,  , 
No.  Shelf,  _  Sec 
No.  Book, 


Ho, 


BX  5099  .B7 

Brown,   John,  1784-1858. 
The  exclusive  claims  of 
Puseyite  Episcopalians  to 


< 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/exclusiveclaimsoOObrow_0 


THE  EXCLUSIVE  CLAIMS 

OF 

PUSEYITE  EPISCOPALIANS 

TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 

INDEFENSIBLE: 

WITH  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

EPISCOPACY  AND  THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION: 

W  A  SERIES  OE  LETTERS  TO  THE  REV.  DR  PTJSEY. 

By  JOHN  BROWN,  D.  D. 

LIINISTER  OP  I.AUGTON,  BERWICKSHIRE. 
TO  WHICH  18  PREFIXED 

AN  ARTICLE  ON  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION 

Erom  the  Edinburgh  Presbyterian  Review. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

Paul  T.  Jones.  Publishing  Agent 

1844. 


Priuteil  by 
WW.  S.  KAETIEH. 


THE 


ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.* 


The  origin  of  Puritan  nonconformity ,t  its  ample  war- 
rant, and  complete  justification,  will  be  found  in  the 
character  and  proceedings  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the 
principles  on  which  the  Anglican  Church  was  at  first 
based,  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  finally  esta- 
blished. 

Elizabeth  was  one  of  those  persons  whose  character 
it  is  difficult  to  portray,  because  it  consisted  of  ele- 
ments apparently  irreconcilable.  She  possessed  the 
peculiar  characteristics  of  both  sexes  in  almost  equal 
proportions.  She  had  all  the  masculine  energy*  and 
enlarged  capacity  of  a  strong-minded  man,  with  all 
the  caprice,  vanity,  and  obstinacy  of  a  weak-minded 
woman;  while  the  circumstances  in  which  she  was 
placed  had  a  direct  tendency  to  develope  and  mature 
all  the  elements  of  her  character.  She  was  suspi- 
cious by  nature,  by  education,  and  by  necessity,  and 
despotic  by  temperament,  by  habit,  and  by  policy. 
Thoroughly  and  intensely  selfish,  she  made  all  the 
means  within  her  reach  minister  to  her  own  interests; 
utterly  insensible  to  the  miseries  she  might  occasion 
to  the  instruments  of  her  will,  or  the  objects  of  her 

*  The  article  on  the  Anglican  Reformation  is  from  the  Presby- 
terian  Review  of  January,  1843. 

t  Puritans  and  nonconformists  were,  at  first,  the  common  titles  of 
those  who  were  subsequently  called  Presbyterians,  while  Brownites, 
sectaries,  and  separatists,  were  the  ordinary  appellations  of  those  who 
are  now  called  Independents.  See  Pierce's  Vindication  of  the  Dis- 
senters, pp.  147,  16:),  205,  6,  213,  215,  223.  Hanbury's  Eccl.  Me- 
morials of  Independents,  i.  3,  5,  et  passim. 


iv  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

policy.*  Impatient  of  contradiction,  not  less  from  the 
strong  than  the  weak  points  of  her  character,  she 
quelled,  with  equal  imperiousness,  all  opposition  to 
her  will,  and  crushed  a  refractory  spirit  in  prelates, 
parliaments,  and  privy  council,  in  puritans,  papists, 
and  populace,  with  as  iron  a  rigour  as  was  ever  dis- 
played by  Henry  VIII. 

It  was  only  by  the  favourable  circumstances  in 
which  she  was  placed,  and  by  the  dexterity  with 
which  she  regulated  her  personal  deportment,  as  well 
as  her  general  policy,  that  such  a  character,  which 
could  conciliate  no  love,  enkindle  no  gratitude,  and 
excite  no  sympathy,  could  inspire  those  feelings  of 
national  homage  of  which  we  know  she  was  the  ob- 
ject. Her  life,  to  many  of  her  Protestant  subjects, 
appeared  the  only  barrier  against  the  return  of  Popery 
and  persecution;  and  therefore,  for  their  own  protec- 
tion, they  not  only  tolerated  the  strong  measures  of 
her  government,  but  admired  her  prudence,  and  pro- 
moted her  plans.  Parsimonious  to  an  extreme  in 
granting  salaries  or  pensions  to  her  servants  from  the 
royal  treasures,  she  was  munificent  in  rewarding,  if 
not  her  ministers,  at  least  her  minions,  by  donations 
from  the  estates  of  the  Church;  and  thus  she  secured 
the  applause  of  those — and  they  are  always  a  numer- 
ous party — who  look  more  to  the  value  of  the  gift, 
than  the  legitimacy  of  the  source  whence  it  is  drawn. 
Theatrical,  yet  imposing,  in  her  carriage  ;  magnificent, 
though  coarse  in  her  tastes;  thoroughly  English  in  her 
feelings,  and  successful  in  her  enterprises,  she  won 
and  retained  the  admiration  of  those  (always  the  mass 
in  every  nation)  who  are  impressed  only  through 
then  senses,  judge  merely  by  results,  and  admire 

*  "  My  good  old  mistress,"  says  Sir  Francis  Bacon  to  King  James 
in  1612,  "was  wont  to  call  me  her  watch  candle,  because  it  pleased 
her  to  say  I  did  continually  burn;  and  yet  she  suffered  me  to  waste 
almost  to  nothing."  (Wordsworth's  Eccl.  Biog.  iv.  70,  n.)  She  kept 
Sir  Francis  Walsingham  at  Paris,  because  she  found  him  serviceable 
to  her  purposes,  till  his  health  was  completely  shattered,  and  his  for- 
tune utterly  impoverished ;  nor  could  all  his  petitions  and  representa- 
tions to  herself  and  her  council,  obtain  either  an  accession  to  his 
income,  a  respite  to  his  labours,  or  a  recall  from  his  embassy.  See 
Strype's  Annals,  iii.  339,  340. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


V 


power  and  splendour,  without  looking  too  curiously 
into  the  source  whence  the  one  is  derived,  or  the  ob- 
jects to  which  the  other  is  directed.  It  was  part  of 
her  policy  not  to  demand  taxes  from  her  parliaments, 
lest  they  might  attempt  to  canvass  her  measures,  and 
control  her  proceedings;*  while  from  the  very  same 
policy  she  directed  the  most  judicious  efforts  to  enlarge 
the  wealth  and  the  prosperity  of  the  kingdom  ;  and  all 
this  had,  of  course,  the  very  strongest  tendency  to 
increase  her  general  popularity.  It  must  have  been 
from  sources  such  as  these  that  so  much  of  admiration 
was  lavished  upon  one  who  never  uttered  one  amiable 
sentiment,  and  never  performed  one  generous  deed. 

It  is  not  less  difficult  to  estimate  Elizabeth's  reli- 
gious character,  than  to  do  justice  to  her  personal  and 
political  life.  During  her  sister's  reign,  she  regularly 
attended  confession  and  mass,  and  conformed  to  all 
the  ritual  observances  of  Popery.t  Nor  was  this 
merely  from  policy,  or  from  a  desire  to  escape  perse- 
cution from  that  ferocious  bigot,  who  was  well  known 
to  cherish  no  sisterly  regard  towards  her ;  for  after 
her  accession  to  the  throne,  she  continued  to  pray  to 
the  Virgin  Mary,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  maintained 
many  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Romanism.  She 
believed  in  the  real  presence,  which,  as  then  under- 
stood, was  synonymous  with  transubstantiation,J  pub- 
licly censured  a  preacher,  who  preached  against  it  in 
her  presence,  and  praised  another  who  preached  in 
its  favour.  The  people,  in  the  sudden  ebullition  of 
their  joy,  at  what  they  conceived  the  downfall  of  Ro- 
manism, pulled  down  the  rood  lofts,  broke  in  pieces 
altars  and  images,  and  burnt  up  the  pictures  and  cruci- 
fixes, which,  in  the  days  of  their  ignorance,  they  had 
worshipped. §  Elizabeth,  however,  indignant  at  such 
sacrilege,  ordered  these  appendages  of  idolatry  to  be 
restored ;  and  it  was  only  after  the  most  strenuous 
exertions  of  her  prelates  and  counsellors,  she  could  be 
induced  to  yield  to  their  removal.  ||  But  although  she 

*  Bishop  Short's  Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England. 
2d  edit.  Sect.  421),  467.  « 

t  Strype's  Annals,  i.  2.  t  Ibid.  2,  3.  §  Ibid.  260—2. 

II  Ibid.  237,  241.    There  is  a  singular  letter  from  Jewell  to  Peter 


VI 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


gave  a  reluctant  assent  to  have  them  removed  from 
the  churches,  she  still  retained  a  crucifix,  with  tapers 
burning  before  it,  upon  the  altar  in  her  own  private 
chapel.  Against  this  open  idolatry,  all  her  prelates, 
not  even  Cox  excepted,  remonstrated  in  a  style  of 
very  unusual  vehemence;  and  in  terms  the  most 
obsequious,  yet  firm,  they  begged  leave  to  decline 
officiating  in  her  majesty's  chapel  until  the  abomina- 
tion was  removed.  For  the  moment  she  seems  to 
have  given  way  to  the  storm.  But  she  soon  recovered 
her  obstinate  determination  in  favour  of  her  crucifix 
and  lighted  tapers, — restored  them  to  their  former 
place  upon  the  altar,* — and  there  they  remained  at 
least  as  late  as  1572.t  Nor  were  these  badges  of 
idolatry  retained  merely  as  ornaments.  Strype  in- 
forms us  distinctly,  that  "  she  and  her  nobles  used  to 
give  honour  to  them."J    Nor  could  it  be  any  ambi- 

Martyr,  (Burnet's  Hist.  Ref.  Records,  Bk.  vi.No.  60,)  dated  4th  Feb. 
1560,  beginning,  "O  my  father,  what  shall  I  write  thee?"  in  which 
he  says,  "  That  controversy  about  crosses  (in  Churches)  is  now  hot 
amongst  us.  You  can  scarcely  believe  in  so  silly  a  matter,  how  men, 
who  seemed  rational,  play  the  fool.  Of  these  the  only  one  you  know 
is  Cox.  To-morrow  a  disputation  is  appointed  to  take  place  upon  this 
matter.  Some  members  of  parliament  are  chosen  arbitrators.  The 
disputants  are,  in  favour  of  crosses,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
(Parker)  and  Cox;  against  them,  Grindal  (Bishop  of  London)  and 
myself.  The  result  lies  at  the  mercy  of  our  judges.  However,  I 
laugh  when  I  think  with  what,  and  how  grave  and  solid  arguments 
they  shall  defend  their  paltry  crosses.  I  shall  write  you  the  result, 
however  it  may  go.  At  present  the  cause  is  in  dependance.  How- 
ever, so  far  as  I  can  divine,  this  is  the  last  letter  you  shall  receive 
from  me  as  a  bishop,  for  the  matter  is  come  to  that  pass,  that  we  must 
either  take  back  those  crosses  of  silver  and  pewter,  which  we  have 
broken,  or  resign  our  bishopricks." 

*  In  1570.    Strype's  Parker,  ii.  35,  36. 

+  Strype,  speaking  of  the  year  1565,  says,  "The  queen  still,  to  this 
year,  kept  the  crucifix  in  her  chapel."  Annals,  i.  ii.  198.  Again, 
"  I  find  the  queen's  chapel  stood  in  statu  quo  seven  years  after." 
Ibid.  200.  Cartwright  also  mentions  the  fact  in  his  "  Admonition 
to  Parliament,"  published  in  1570.  Parker  exerted  himself  strenu- 
ously, but  in  vain,  against  this  nuisance.  Strype's  Parker,  i.  92. 
The  encouragement  which  this  attachment  of  the  queen  to  some  of 
the  grossest  errors  of  their  system  gave  the  papists,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact,  that  a  popish  priest,  in  1564,  dedicated  to  her  a  work 
in  defence  of  the  crucifix  being  retained  and  worshipped  as  before. 
Strype's  An.  i.  260-2. 

J  Strype's  An.  i.  259,  260. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  vii 

guous  manifestation  of  popery  and  idolatry,  which 
could  extract  from  Cox  that  long  and  urgent  declina- 
ture to  officiate  in  her  chapel,  in  which  he  says,  "  I 
most  humbly  sue  unto  your  godly  zeal,  prostrate  and 
with  wet  eyes,  that  ye  will  vouchsafe  to  peruse  the 
considerations  which  move  me,  that  I  dare  not  minis- 
ter in  your  grace's  chapel,  the  lights  and  cross  remain- 
ing."* 

But  although  Elizabeth  was  thus  obstinate  in  fa- 
vour of  these  "dregs  of  Popery,"  and  "relics  of  the 
Amorites,"  as  Jewell  termed  them,  she  had  not  even 
the  semblance  of  personal  religion.  Those  members 
of  the  Church  of  England  who  are  favourable  to  pro- 
testantism, and  yet  feel  that  their  Church  is  identified 
with  the  Church  of  Elizabeth,  may,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  be  expected  to  portray  her  both  as  Protestant 
and  pious;  and  this  has  been  done  to  an  extent  which, 
in  our  mind,  has  rendered  every  history  of  Elizabeth, 
by  members  of  the  Anglican  Church,  altogether  un- 
worthy of  credit,  except  simply  when  they  state  facts, 
and  give  their  authority  for  them.  Even  Strype,  so 
favourably  distinguished  for  veracity  and  candour, 
exerts  himself  to  write  a  panegyric  on  Elizabeth, 
although  the  facts  which  he  is  too  honest  to  conceal, 
jar  oddly  enough  with  his  praises;  and  although  also, 
occasional  expressions  drop  unguardedly  from  his  pen, 
which  show  how  dissatisfied  he  was  with  the  per- 
sonal character  and  religion  of  that  queen. 

"  And,  indeed,"  he  says,  speaking  of  her  religious 
character  at  her  accession,  "  what  to  think  of  the 
queen  at  this  time  as  to  her  religion,  one  might  hesi- 
tate somewhat. "t  She  seldom  or  never  attended 
Church  except  during  Lent,  (which  she  observed,  and 
compelled  others  to  observe,  with  all  the  formality  of 
Rome,)  when  the  best  pulpit  orators  from  all  parts  of 
England  were  summoned  up  to  preach  before  her.t 
She,  indeed,  held  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  not  only 
in  contempt,  but  in  something  bordering  upon  detesta- 


*  Strype's  An.  i.  260,  and  Ap.  Rec.  No.  22. 

t  Annals,  i.  2.  \  Strype's  Parker,  i.  401. 


Viii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


tion,  and  wished  that  all  her  subjects  should  follow 
her  own  example  in  absenting  themselves  from  hear- 
ing sermons.  While  nine  parishes  out  of  every  ten 
throughout  the  kingdom  were  destitute  of  a  preaching 
ministry,  she  commanded  Grindal,  in  1 576,  to  diminish 
still  further  the  number  of  preachers,  declaring  that 
three  or  four  were  sufficient  for  a  whole  county — 
that  preaching  did  more  harm  than  good,  and  that, 
consequently,  "  it  was  good  for  the  Church  to  have 
few  preachers."*  And  because  he  would  not  obey, 
suppress  "  the  prophesyings,"  and  lessen  the  number 
of  preachers,  she  suspended  him  from  his  functions, 
sequestered  his  revenues,  and  confined  him  a  prisoner 
to  his  own  house,  and  it  was  with  some  difficulty  she 
was  restrained  from  proceeding  further  against  him. 
Grindal's  firmness,  however,  under  God,  saved  Eng- 
land ;  for  had  he  yielded  to  her  anti-christian  tyranny, 
it  is  easy  to  perceive  what  the  result  must  have  been 
upon  the  moral  and  spiritual  condition  of  the  king- 
dom. 

Nor  were  her  morals  more  eminent  than  her  piety. 
Without  giving  more  attention  than  they  deserve  to  the 
scandalous  revelations  of  Lingard,  or  to  the  rumours 
which  have  descended  to  our  own  time  in  secret  me- 
moirs, in  MSS.,  and  by  traditions,  it  is  impossible  to 
question  that  the  "  virgin  queen"  hardly  deserved  the 
epithet  of  which  she  was  so  ambitious.!  She  indulg- 
ed freely  in  the  pleasures  of  the  table.  During  her 
annual  "  progresses,"  her  prelates  and  nobles,  aware 
of  her  taste  for  magnificent  entertainments,  rivalled 
one  another  in  ministering  to  her  gratification.  After 
her  return  from  these  more  than  oriental  fetes,  she 
was  generally  indisposed,  nature  exacting  her  usual 
tribute,  not  less  from  the  queen,  than  from  more 

*  Strype's  Grindal,  pp.  328,  329,  and  Appendix  B.  ii.  No.  9,  which 
we  recommend  to  our  readers  to  read  throughout. 

t  Leicester,  in  a  private  letter  to  Walsingham,  while  ambassador 
at  Paris,  speaking  of  a  mysterious  illness,  by  which  she  was  sudden- 
ly seized,  says,  "  That,  indeed,  she  had  been  troubled  with  a  spice  or 
show  of  the  mother."  And  although  he  says  that,  "  indeed,  it  was 
not  so,"  he  was  too  good  a  courtier,  as  well  as  too  personally  implica- 
ted, to  be  a  trustworthy  witness.    Strype's  An.  iii.  319. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


plebeian  gourmands.*  She  swore  most  profanely, 
not  only  in  her  conversation,  but  also  in  her  letters, 
and  that  not  only  to  her  profane  men,  but  even  to  her 
prelates,  t 

As  Elizabeth  did  not  often  attend  church,  she  had 
the  more  time  to  desecrate  the  Sabbath;  and  while 
the  puritans  were  persecuted  for  not  honouring  saints' 
lay,  she,  her  nobles  and  her  prelates,  profaned  the 
lay  of  the  Lord.  In  one  of  her  "  progresses,"  in 
.575,  she  spent  three  weeks  at  Kenilworth,  one  of 
he  seats  of  her  favourite,  the  Earl  of  Leicester.  A 
contemporary  chronicler  gives  the  following  account 
of  the  manner  in  which  two  of  trfc  Sabbaths  spent 
tlere  were  desecrated.  In  the  forenoon  she  went  to 
the  parish  church.  But  "the  afternoon"  was  spent 
"  n  excellent  music  of  sundry  sweet  instruments,  and 
in  lancing  of  lords  and  ladies,  and  other  worshipful 
degrees,  with  lively  agility  and  commendable  grace. 
At  light,  late  after  a  warning  or  two,"  such  as  Jupi- 
ter's respects  to  the  queen  and  other  heathen  masques 
and  mummeries,  there  "  were  blazes  of  burning  darts 
flying  to  and  fro,  beams  of  stars,  coruscant  streams, 
and  hail  of  fiery  sparks,  lightning  of  wild-fire,  in 

*  This,  in  1571,  after  her  return  from  one  of  these  "progresses," 
"  She  was  taken  suddenly  sick  at  her  stomach,  and  as  suddenly  re- 
lieved tv  a  vomit."    Strype's  An.  iii.  175. 

t  Sir  lohn  Harrington,  giving  a  description  of  an  interview  he 
had  wit!  her  in  1601,  a  year  or  two  before  her  death,  says,  "She 
swears  much  at  those  that  cause  her  griefs  in  such  wise,  to  the  no 
small  discomfiture  of  all  about  her."  Nugae  Antiquae,  i.  319.  We 
owe  the  bllowing  anecdote  to  the  same  amusing  gossip.  Cox  of 
Ely  having  refused  to  alienate  some  of  the  best  houses  and  manors 
of  his  see  to  some  of  her  courtiers,  notwithstanding  of  a  personal 
command  from  the  queen,  received  from  the  indignant  Elizabeth  the 
following  characteristic  epistle.  "  Proud  prelate,  you  know  what  you 
were  before  1  made  you  what  you  are;  if  you  do  not  immediately 
comply  with  my  request,  by  G — d,  I  will  unfrock  you.  Elizabeth." 
However  ludicrous  to  us,  such  a  mandate  must  have  been  anything 
bit  laughable  to  the  poor  bishop  of  Ely.  With  a  pertinacity,  how- 
e'er,  which  would  have  been  sublime,  had  it  been  displayed  in  a 
bitter  cause,  Cox  preserved  to  the  last  the  revenues  of  his  see.  After 
he  death,  however,  Elizabeth  was  revenged.  She  kept  the  diocese 
vacant  for  eighteen  years,  (as  she  kept  Oxford  for  twenty-two  years,) 
anl  before  a  succession  was  appointed,  she  stripped  it  so  bare,  that 
fron  having  been  one  of  the  richest,  it  is  now  one  of  the  poorest  dio- 
cesis  in  England. 


X 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


water  and  land,  flight  and  shot  of  thunder-bolts — all 
with  continuance,  terror  and  vehemence,  as  though 
the  heavens  thundered,  the  Avater  scourged,  and 
the  earth  shook.  This  lasted  till  after  midnight." 
Next  Sabbath  the  same  scene  was  repeated  with 
sundry  alterations.  But,  in  addition,  "  this,  by  the 
kalendar,"  being  "  St.  Kenelme's  day,"  the  genius 
or  tutelary  god  of  the  place,  there  "was  a  solemi 
country  bridal,  with  running  at  quintal,  in  honoir 
of  this  Kenilworth  Castle,  and  of  God  and  St.  Kei> 
elme  !"*  When  we  bear  in  mind  the  manner  h 
which  the  Sabbath  lias  been  desecrated  in  England 
down  from  the  Beformation  by  princes,  peers,  aid 
prelates,  by  "  Book  of  Sports,"  by  acts  of  parliamait 
and  convocation,  and  that  the  only  friends  of  Sab- 
bath observance  have  been  the  persecuted  puritais, 
the  wonder  is,  not  that  it  should  be  so  grievously 
desecrated,  but  that  any  veneration  whatever  shculd 
continue  to  be  paid  to  it. 

Among  the  manifold  forms  in  which  the  queen's 
attachment  to  the  "relics  of  Popery"  displayed  itself, 
few  were  so  offensive  to  the  clergy  as  her  counten- 
ance of  clerical  celibacy  and  her  opposition  t)  the 
marriage  of  the  priesthood.    In  her  first  parlitment 

*  Apud  Strype's  An.  ii.  i.  584,  585.  It  may  be  said  in  palliation 
of  Elizabeth's  desecration  of  tlie  Sabbath,  that  she  only  folliwed  the 
example  set  before  her  by  the  primate  of  all  England.  Paker  hav- 
ing finished  a  princely  dining  hall  in  his  palace  at  Cantfrbury,  in 
1565,  gave  several  magnificent  entertainments  there.  "  7he  first," 
says  his  biographer,  "  was  at  Whitsuntide,  and  lasted  tlree  days, 
that  is  Sunday,  Monday,  and  Tuesday."  ..."  His  seond  feast 
was  on  Trinity  Sunday  following.  .  .  .  The  hall  wc.s  set  forth  with 
much  plate  of  silver  and  gold,  adorned  with  rich  tapestry  »f  Flanders 
.  .  .  There  were  dainties  of  all  sorts,  both  meats  and  drinks,  and  in 
great  plenty,  and  all  things  served  in  excellent  order  by  none  but  the 
archbishop's  servants."  Strype's  Parker,  i.  376 — 380.  It  was 
Parker's  ambition  upon  these  occasions  to  rival  the  fetes  given  oy 
his  predecessor  Warham  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  and  Henry  VIII., 
and  that  such  important  matters  might  not  be  lost  to  posterity,  he 
became  their  historian  himself.  Ibid.  ii.  296,  297.  Even  when  he 
retired  to  his  smallest  country  residence,  Parker's  domestic  establish- 
ment  consisted  of  about  a  hundred  retainers.  Ibid.  i.  277;  Parler, 
however,  was  completely  outshone  by  Whitgift,  who  rivalled  Wofeey 
himself.  See  his  Life  by  "Sir  George  Paule,  comptroller  of  his 
Grace's  household,"  in  Wordsworth's  Ecclesiastical  Biographj,  iv. 
367—9. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XI 

an  attempt  was  made  to  pass  an  act  to  legalize  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  as  had  been  done  in  the  reign 
of  her  brother,  but  she  would  not  permit  it.*  Various 
efforts  were  made  by  Cecil,  Parker  (who  was  mar- 
ried himself)  and  others,  to  induce  her,  at  subsequent 
periods,  to  yield ;  but  their  attempts  only  exasperated 
the  vestal  queen.  In  1561,  she  issued  an  injunction 
forbidding  married  clergymen  from  living  with  their 
Avives  within  the  precincts  of  colleges  or  cathedral 
closes,  and  but  for  the  importunity  of  Cecil,  she  would 
have  absolutely  forbidden  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 
When  Parker  shortly  afterwards  waited  upon  her, 
she  scolded  him  with  much  "bitterness,"  and  spoke 
in  such  terms  not  only  against  clerical  matrimony, 
but  the  whole  constitution  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  threw  out  such  hints  of  what  it  was  her  intention 
to  do  to  remedy  the  evils  she  complained  of,  that,  as 
he  wrote  to  Cecil,  he  expected  nothing  short  of  an 
absolute  order  to  restore  things  to  the  condition  in 
which  they  stood  in  the  reign  of  her  sister,  or,  at  all 
events,  that  she  would  restore  so  much  of  popery 
that  he  could  not  conform  to  the  Church.t  When 
she  cooled,  however,  and  saw  that  Protestantism  was 
the  only  tenure  by  which  she  held  her  crown,  she 
relented  so  far  as  not  to  compel  a  return  to  popery, 
but  she  issued  orders  imposing  conditions  upon  the 
marriage  of  the  priesthood,  which  he  must  have  been 
not  only  uxorious  indeed,  but  degraded  in  taste  and 
spirit,  who  could  comply  with.J  Never  could  she 
be  got  to  give  any  thing  more  than  a  tacit  connivance 
to  clerical  matrimony,  while  ever  and  anon  she  poured 
her  contempt  upon  both  the  married  clergy  and  their 
wives.  That  amusing  gossip,  Sir  John  Harrington, 
gives  the  following  ludicrous  instance  of  her  treatment 
even  of  the  primate's  lady.  Parker  had  given  Eliza- 
beth one  of  his  sumptuous  banquets  at  Lambeth. 
As  the  queen  was  retiring,  she  thus  publicly  addressed 
Mrs.  Parker :  "  Madam" — (the  usual  title  of  mar- 

*  Strypo's  Ann.  i.  118.  t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  213—217. 

t  See  the  injunctions  in  Bishop  Sparrow's  Collections,  65,  or  in 
Dr.  Cardwell's  Documentary  Annals  of  the  Church  of  England,  i. 
No.  43.  pp.  178—20!). 


Xii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

ried  ladies) — "  Madam  I  may  not  call  you,  Mistress" 
(the  ordinary  title  of  unmarried  ladies)  "  I  am  loath 
to  call  you,  but,  however,  I  thank  you  for  your  good 
cheer."  In  1594,  she  banished  Bishop  Fletcher, 
lately  translated  from  Worcester  to  London,  from 
her  court  for  having  married  "a  fine  lady,"  (sister  to 
Sir  George  Gifford,  one  of  her  gentlemen  pensioners,) 
which  she  said  "  was  a  very  indecent  act  for  an  elder- 
ly clergyman."  Nor  did  her  wrath  end  here.  She 
commanded  Whitgift  to  suspend  him,  and  it  was 
with  considerable  exertions  on  the  part  of  Cecil  that 
at  the  end  of  six  months  the  suspension  was  removed. 
Still  she  would  not  suffer  him  for  a  twelvemonth 
afterward  to  appear  in  her  presence.  The  poor  court 
chaplain,  who  had  hitherto  basked  in  the  sunshine  of 
her  smiles,  pined  away  under  her  frowns,  and  died 
shortly  afterwards  of  a  broken  heart, — a  warning  to 
all  "elderly  clergymen"  not  to  be  guilty  of  such 
"  indecent  acts "  in  future.*  We  shall  show  in 
the  sequel  that  if  Elizabeth  had  had  any  regard  to 
the  morals  of  the  clergy,  (which  she  had  not,)  she 
ought  rather  to  have  passed  a  law  compelling  them 
to  marry,  nor  would  it  have  militated  against  good 
morals  had  she  set  them  the  example. 

Such  having  been  Elizabeth's  feelings  against  Pro- 
testantism and  in  favour  of  Popery,  it  must  be  matter 
of  great  surprise  to  ordinary  readers  that  she  should 
ever  have  become  a  Protestant  at  all.  And,  indeed, 
we  are  thoroughly  persuaded  that  if  she  had  not  been 
necessitated,  both  by  her  personal  and  political  posi- 
tion, to  promote  the  reformed  interest,  she  would 
have  remained  herself,  and  kept  the  kingdom  too,  in 
communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  Religion  with 
Elizabeth  was,  all  her  life,  a  mere  political  engine. 
While  she  persecuted  in  her  own  kingdom  all  who 
opposed  her  ecclesiastical  views,  she  aided  by  coun- 
sels, men,  and  money,  the  Protestants  of  Scotland, 
France,  Geneva,  and  the  Netherlands,  who  opposed 
the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  their  civil  governors. 

*  See  the  whole  account  in  Strype's  Whitgift,  ii.  215 — 218. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  xiii 

The  court  of  Rome  had  declared  her  father's  mar- 
riage with  her  mother  invalid,  and  herself  conse- 
quently illegitimate,  and  incapable  of  inheriting  the 
throne  of  England.  On  her  accession,  she  despatched 
a  notification  of  that  event  to  Rome,  and  resolved  in 
the  meanwhile  to  do  nothing  in  favour  of  the  Refor- 
mation, lest  she  might  alienate  the  Vatican.  The 
pontiff,  however,  ignorant  equally  of  his  own  impo- 
tency,  and  of  the  imperiousness  of  her  whom  he  ad- 
dressed, sent  her  back  a  haughty  and  arrogant  an- 
swer, declared  her  illegitimate,  commanded  her  to 
abandon  the  throne  she  had  usurped,  and  resign  her- 
self entirely  to  the  will  of  the  holy  see  of  which  Eng- 
land was  but  a  fief.  Such  language  Elizabeth  could 
little  brook  even  from  the  assumed  vicar  of  Christ. 
Had  the  energetic  but  wily  and  insinuating  Sixtus  V. 
then  occupied  the  chair  of  Peter,  from  his  avowed 
regard  for  the  congenial  character  of  Elizabeth,  and 
from  other  politic  considerations,  the  answer  would 
assuredly  have  been  different,  and  the  result  would  as 
assuredly  have  been  different  also.  Or  had  Elizabeth 
been  a  weak-minded  Papist,  as  she  was  a  strong- 
minded-one,  she  might  have  been  terrified  into  com- 
pliance, and  Mary  of  Scotland  would  have  ascended 
the  throne  of  England  in  her  own  person  instead  of 
that  of  her  son.  But  God  made  the  wrath  of  men 
to  praise  him,  and  human  infirmities  and  folly  to 
magnify  his  own  wisdom  and  might.  Elizabeth's 
courage  could  as  little  falter  at  the  spiritual  thunders 
of  the  Vatican  as  at  the  more  formidable  artillery  of 
the  Armada  of  Spain.  She  therefore  at  once  deter- 
mined to  declare  open  war  with  the  papacy,  and  to 
construct  the  Church  of  England  after  a  model  which, 
without  banishing  Popery  in  the  splendour  of  its  or- 
naments, the  magnificence  of  its  ritual,  the  mysticism 
of  its  sacraments,  or  the  scholasticism  of  its  dogmas, 
should  be  found  more  subservient  to  her  own  will, 
and  more  conducive  to  her  personal  aggrandizement, 
than  if  it  held  of  Rome.  She  resolved  to  unite  the 
pontificale  with  the  regale  in  her  own  person,  to  in- 
corporate the  triple-storied  tiara  with  the  imperial 


Xiv  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

diadem,  and  grasp  the  keys  of  Peter  with  the  same 
hand  which  wielded  the  sword  of  Alfred.  In  one 
word,  she  determined  to  become  to  the  Church  of 
England  what  the  Pope  was  to  the  Church  of  Rome ; 
and  she  carried  her  determination  into  execution. 

Elizabeth  left  neither  her  prelates  nor  her  privy 
council  at  any  loss  to  divine  her  intentions.  She  told 
Parker  at  the  interview,  at  which,  as  already  narrated, 
she  had  denounced  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  that  she 
meant  to  issue  out  injunctions  in  favour  of  Popery.* 
Had  she  been  so  disposed,  the  act  of  supremacy,  to 
which  we  shall  immediately  allude,  placed  the  entire 
constitutional  power  so  to  do  in  her  hands.  Political 
considerations,  however,  dissuaded  her  from  seeking 
reconciliation  with  Rome.  She  valued  her  ecclesias- 
tical supremacy  at  the  very  least  as  highly  as  her 
civil  autocracy ;  and  as  a  reconciliation  with  Rome 
could  be  purchased  only  by  the  surrender  of  the  for- 
mer, and  most  probably  also  of  the  latter,  Elizabeth 
remained  satisfied  with  the  power  to  render  the  na- 
tional religion  Popish  in  every  thing  but  a  submission 
to  the  universal  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  Parker, 
whose  conscience  was  sufficiently  elastic  to  enable 
him  to  remain  in  England  during  the  reign  of  Mary, 
and  whose  nerves  were  not  easily  shaken,  was  in  a 
"horror"  at  the  determined  manner  in  which  she 
told  him  she  was  resolved  to  restore  Popery;  and  he 
anticipated  nothing  else  than  that  he  should  be  one 
of  the  first  victims  of  a  new  Popish  persecution.t 
Even  Cox,  who,  next  to  Cheney  of  Gloucester,  was 
the  most  papistical  of  Elizabeth's  first  bishops,  was 
so  well  aware  of  her  inclinations  to  restore  more  of 
Popery  than  even  he  desired,  that  one  of  the  argu- 
ments which  he  employed  to  urge  Parker  to  a  more 
vigorous  persecution  of  the  puritans,  was  an  appre- 
hension lest  the  opposition  they  gave  to  her  ecclesi- 
astical arrangements  should  provoke  her  to  a  total 
abandonment  of  Protestantism.^  Indeed,  so  well 
established  is  this  point  by  the  clearest  historic  evi- 

«  Strype's  Parker,  i.  217,  218. 

t  Ibid.  Ap.  Records,  No.  17.  t  Ibid.  i.  456. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


XV 


dence,  that  no  man  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  the 
case  now  doubts  it,  except,  perhaps,  some  Anglican 
evangelicals,  who  are  retained  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Church  of  England  through  a  delusive  idea  that  it 
had  really  been  reformed  by  Elizabeth.  The  High 
Church  party  are  perfectly  aware  that  Elizabeth  did 
prevent  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England. 
"  This  arbitrary  monarch,"  says  one  of  that  party, 
"had  a  tendency  towards  Rome  almost  in  every 
thing  but  the  doctrine  of  the  papal  supremacy.  To 
the  real  presence  she  was  understood  to  have  no  ob- 
jection; the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  she  decidedly  ap- 
proved; the  gorgeous  rites  of  the  ancient  form  of 
worship  she  admired,  and  in  her  own  chapel  retain- 
ed."* The  Puseyites  gratefully  acknowledge  the  ser- 
vice Elizabeth  rendered  to  their  cause.  "  Queen 
Elizabeth,"  says  one  of  that  school,  "with  her  pre- 
judices in  favour  of  the  old  religion,  was  doubtless 
an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God  for  stopping  the 
progress  of  the  Reformation. "t  Indeed,  the  only 
objections  that  party  have  to  Elizabeth's  measures  is, 
that  she  kept  the  supremacy  to  herself  instead  of 
leaving  it  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy. 

Still  with  all  her  faults,  and  they  are  sufficiently 
numerous  and  aggravated,  Elizabeth  was  a  splendid 
monarch,  and  we  can  easily  account  for  the  admira- 
tion in  which  her  memory  is  still  held  in  England. 
To  view  her  to  advantage,  or  perhaps  even  to  do  her 
justice,  we  must  forget  her  sex,  overlook  her  religious 
opinions,  bear  in  mind  the  unsettled  form  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  judge  her  by  the  maxims  of  her  own 
age.  That  assuredly  could  be  no  ordinary  person- 
age who  could  task  the  consummate  sagacity  and 
finished  tact  of  Cecil,  fix  the  volatile  passions  of  Lei- 

*  Quarterly  Review  for  June  1827,  p.  31.  See  even  the  low 
church  Burnet,  the  indiscriminate  panegyrist  of  Elizabeth's  mea- 
sures, Hist.  Ref.  ed.  1839,  ii.  582-3.  Dr.  Short,  the  present  bishop 
of  Sodor  and  Man,  makes  the  same  confession,  Sketch  of  the  Hist, 
of  the  Church  of  England,  2d  ed.  313,  et  passim.  And  so,  in  short, 
as  we  have  said,  do  all  historians,  except  some  evangelicals,  to  whose 
position  it  is  essential  to  overlook  the  fact. 

t  British  Critic  for  October  1842,  p.  333.    See  also,  p.  330—1. 


XVi  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

cester,  bend  the  stubborn  spirit  of  Parker,  outmanoeu- 
vre the  Machiavellian  policy  of  Montalto,  and  hum- 
ble the  genius,  chivalry,  and  resources  of  Spain.  In 
courage  equal  to  Semiramis,  in  accomplishments  to 
Zenobia,  in  policy  and  energy  to  Catharine,  she  pos- 
sessed a  combination  of  talents  to  which  none  of  them 
could  lay  claim.  Forget  for  the  moment  her  creed, 
overlook  her  treatment  of  parliament  and  the  Puri- 
tans, place  yourself  in  her  own  age,  and  view  her 
merely  as  a  monarch,  and  even  prejudice  must  ac- 
knowledge that  she  was  the  most  magnificent  sove- 
reign that  ever  occupied  the  English  throne. 

The  various  steps  by  which  the  Church  of  England 
was  brought  to  assume  its  present  form,  have  been, 
as  might  well  be  expected,  very  keenly  canvassed. 
"We  shall  enable  the  reader,  by  a  simple  induction  of 
facts,  to  form  his  own  opinion  both  of  the  Church  itself, 
and  of  the  various  means  by  which  it  was  primarily 
established,  and  made  to  assume  its  present  form. 

The  first  act  of  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  restor- 
ed to  the  crown  the  supremacy  in  matters  spiritual 
which  was  possessed  by  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward 
VI.,  but  which  Mary  had  resigned  to  the  Pope.  By 
this  act 

"  Such  jurisdictions,  privileges,  superiorities,  and 
pre-eminences,  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical,  as  by  any 
spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  power  or  authority  hath 
heretofore  been,  or  may  lawfully  be  exercised  or 
used  for  the  visitation  of  the  ecclesiastical  state  and 
persons,  and  for  reformation,  order,  and  correction 
of  the  same,  and  of  all  manner  of  errors,  heresies, 
schisms,  abuses,  offences,  contempts  and  enormities, 
shall  for  ever,  by  the  authority  of  the  present  parlia- 
ment, be  united  and  annexed  to  the  imperial  crown 
of  the  realm." 

By  a  clause  in  the  act  of  uniformity,  it  was  enacted, 
"  That  the  Queen's  Majesty,  by  advice  of  her  ecclesi- 
astical commissioners,  may  ordain  and  publish  such 
ceremonies  or  rites  as  may  be  most  for  the  advance- 
ment of  God's  glory,  and  the  edifying  of  the  church." 
So  highly  did  Elizabeth  esteem  the  authority  thus 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XVii 


conferred  upon  her  that  she  told  Parker  she  would 
never  have  consented  to  establish  the  Protestant  reli- 
gion at  all  but  for  the  power  with  which  she  was 
thus  invested  to  change  it  according  to  her  own  will. 
Nor  let  it  be  forgotten  that  our  gracious  sovereign 
Victoria,  has,  at  this  moment,  the  very  same  extent  of 
power  which  the  act  of  supremacy  conferred  upon 
Elizabeth. 

In  order  to  enable  Elizabeth,  and  all  her  successors, 
to  exercise  this  most  exorbitant  power,  by  a  clause 
in  the  act  of  supremacy  she  was  empowered  to  dele- 
gate her  authority  to  any  persons,  being  natural  born 
subjects,  whether  lay  or  clerical,  who,  as  commission- 
ers from,  and  for  the  crown,  were  empowered  to 
"  visit,  reform,  redress,  order,  correct  and  amend  all 
such  errors,  heresies,  schisms,  abuses,  contempts  and 
enormities  whatsoever,  which,  by  any  manner  of 
spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  power,  authority  or  jurisdic- 
tion, can  or  may  lawfully  be  reformed,  ordered,  re- 
dressed, corrected,  restrained  or  amended." 

"  Nothing,"  as  a  High  Church  historian  has  well 
observed,  "can  be  more  comprehensive  than  the 
terms  of  this  clause.  The  whole  compass  of  Church 
discipline  seems  (and  not  only  seems,  but  in  reality 
was)  transferred  upon  the  crown."*  While  all  par- 
ties, except  the  most  decided  Erastians,  low  church- 
men, and  some  also  of  the  Evangelical  body,  have 
united  in  condemning,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the 
spiritual  powers  thus  conferred  upon  the  crown,  their 
indignation  has  been  specially  directed  against  that 
clause  by  which  the  whole  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
of  the  Chinch  of  England  may  be  exercised  by  lay 
commissioners,  acting  by  a  warrant  under  the  crown. 
Had  the  crown  been  restricted  to  employ  only  eccle- 
siastics in  ecclesiastical  causes,  the  evil  would  be 
practically  redressed.  But  as  the  crown  not  only 
possessed,  but  exercised  the  power  to  place  this  juris- 
diction in  the  hands  of  laymen,  who,  in  virtue  of  their 
commission,  were  empowered  to  examine,  censure, 

*  Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Barham's  edition,  vi.  224. 
B 


XViii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


suspend,  and  even  depose,  not  only  the  inferior  clergy, 
but  even  the  prelates  and  the  primates,  and  did  too, 
in  manifold  instances,  execute  their  commission,  it 
were  strange,  indeed,  if  any  man  who  can  distinguish 
the  Church  from  the  world,  and  things  spiritual  from 
tilings  civil,  could  but  deplore  and  condemn  this  foul 
invasion  of  the  privileges  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

Such  was  the  foundation  of  the  high  commission 
court,  and  of  the  star  chamber,  which  in  a  subsequent 
age,  proved  so  disastrous,  not  only  to  the  liberties  and 
the  lives  of  the  subject,  but  also  to  the  stability  of  the 
altar  and  the  throne.  The  authority  of  these  courts 
was  so  undefined,  their  powers  so  despotic,  that  they 
could  be  perpetuated  only  by  the  destruction  of  all 
liberty,  both  civil  and  religious. 

"  Whoever,"  says  a  Romanist  historian  of  high 
name,  "  will  compare  the  powers  given  to  this  tribu- 
nal, (the  high  commission  court)  with  those  of  the 
inquisition  which  Philip  the  Second  endeavoured  to 
establish  in  the  Low  Countries,  will  find  that  the  chief 
difference  between  the  two  courts  consisted  in  their 
names."* 

And  all  that  a  learned  and  zealous  advocate  of 
the  Church  of  England  can  say  in  her  defence  is, 
that  "  Dr.  Lingard  ought  to  have  added,  that  though 
such  commissions  were  not  unknown  in  the  time  of 
Edward  VI.,  the  person  who  first  brought  into  Eng- 
land the  model  attempted  in  the  Low  Countries  was 
Queen  Mary;  .  .  .  and  that  the  same  system  was 
continued  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  not  because  it 
was  congenial  with  the  spirit  of  Protestantism,  but 
because  the  temper  of  the  times  had  been  trained 
and  hardened  in  the  school  of  Popery."t  As  if  it 
were  not  admitted,  even  by  this  apologist  himself, 
that  the  Church  of  England  had  the  precedency  of 
Philip  in  the  institution  of  a  court  of  inquisition 
under  Edward,  as  if  any  man  but  an  out-and-out 
apologist  of  the  Church  of  England  would  identify 

t  Lingard's  History  of  England,  v.  316. 

t  Dr.  Cardwell's  Documentary  Annals  of  the  Church  of  England, 
.  i.  223. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


xix 


the  actions  of  Elizabeth  with  the  genuine  manifesta- 
tions of  "  the  spirit  of  Protestantism,"  and  as  if,  be- 
sides, the  high  commission  court  and  the  star  cham- 
ber, as  Dr.  Cardwell's  words  would  insinuate,  had 
terminated  with  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  or  had  been 
abolished  by  the  Church  of  England,  when  he  very 
well  knows  the  horrors  these  courts  perpetrated  in 
subsequent  reigns,  and  knows,  too,  that  it  was  the 
rising  power  of  the  Puritans  that  demolished  these 
infernal  courts,  which  an  increasing  party  in  the 
Church  of  England,  who  fairly  represent  her  genius, 
will  ere  long  restore,  if  the  old  puritan  spirit  do  not 
prevent  such  a  national  calamity. 

Ample  as  the  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  powers 
thus  conferred  upon  Elizabeth  were,  she  was  not 
satisfied,  until,  by  a  clause  in  the  act  of  supremacy, 
all  persons  holding  public  office,  civil,  juridical,  muni- 
cipal, military  or  ecclesiastical,  were  required  to  take 
an  oath  in  recognition  of  the  supremacy  royal,  binding 
themselves  to  defend  the  same,  under  pain  of  being 
deprived  of  their  offices,  and  of  being  declared  inca- 
pable of  further  employment.  This  oath,  by  the  36th 
canon,  continues  to  be  taken  by  all  ecclesiastics  down 
to  this  day. 

Thus,  by  one  disastrous  stroke,  the  liberties  of  the 
Church  of  England  were  cloven  down,  and  laid  pros- 
trate in  the  dust.  All  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  all 
spiritual  power,  were  lodged  in  the  crown,  without 
respect  to  the  sex,  creed,  or  character  of  the  party 
who,  for  the  time,  might  happen  to  wear  it.  The 
prelates  and  pastors  of  that  Church  thus  became,  even 
in  the  discharge  of  their  most  sacred  functions,  the 
mere  vicars  and  delegates  of  the  supreme  civil  magis- 
trate. Not  one  rite,  even  the  most  trivial,  can  they 
alter,  not  one  canon,  however  necessary,  can  they 
pass,  not  one  error,  however  gross,  can  they  reform, 
not  one  omission,  even  the  most  important,  can  they 
supply.  The  civil  magistrate  enacts  the  creed  they 
are  bound  to  profess  and  inculcate,  frames  the  prayers 
which  they  must  offer  at  the  throne  of  God,  prescribes 
in  number  and  form  the  sacraments  they  must  admin- 


XX 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


ister,  arranges  the  rites  and  vestments  they  must  use, 
down  to  the  colour,  shape,  and  stuff  of  a  cap  or  a 
tunicle,  and  takes  discipline  altogether  out  of  their 
hand.  The  parish  priest  has  no  authority  to  exclude 
the  most  profligate  sinner  from  communion,  the  lord- 
liest prelate  or  primate  cannot  excommunicate  the 
most  abandoned  sinner,  or  suspend  the  most  immoral 
ecclesiastic  from  his  functions,  and  should  either  the 
priest  or  the  prelate  attempt  to  exercise  the  discipline 
prescribed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  in  his  house,  he  will 
speedily  be  made  to  understand,  by  the  terrors  of  a 
praemunire,  or  the  experience  of  a  prison,  that  he  is 
not  appointed  in  the  Church  of  England  to  administer 
the  laws  of  Christ,  but  the  statutes  of  the  imperial  par- 
liament, or  the  injunctions  of  the  crown.*  Never  was 
there  so  autocratical  a  despotism  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a  human  being,  as,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church 
of  England,  is  reposed  in  the  sovereign — never,  on 
earth,  was  there  so  fettered  and  enthralled  a  commu- 
nity as  the  southern  establishment.  The  muftis  and 
other  ecclesiastical  functionaries  (so  to  term  them) 
have  an  indefinite  authority  by  the  constitution  of 
Turkey  to  resist  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Sultan — a 
general  council,  it  is  the  prevalent  opinion  among 
Romanists,  can  control  the  authority  of  the  pope,  and 
in  both  cases  the  supreme  functionaries  are  consider- 
ed spiritual  officers;  but  in  the  Church  of  England, 

*  It  is  only  one  or  two  years  ago  that  a  country  clergyman  wrote 
the  editor  of  the  Christian  Observer  for  advice  under  the  following 
circumstances.  A  married  gentleman  in  his  parish  lived  in  a  state 
of  open  adultery  with  the  wile  of  another  man.  A  child  was  the  fruit 
of  this  unhallowed  union.  The  guilty,  but  shameless  mother,  actuated 
by  feeling3  which  we  are  glad  we  cannot  analyze,  came  to  the  min- 
ister, insisting  upon  being  "  churched  ;"  that  is,  that  a  particular  office, 
appointed  for  the  purpose,  should  be  offered  up  next  Sabbath,  return, 
ing  thanks  to  the  God  of  all  holiness  for  the  safe  delivery  of  this  infant, 
born  in  double  adultery.  We  know  not  what  was  the  issue  of  the  case, 
but  our  brethren  of  the  Synod  of  Ulster,  in  one  of  their  late  admi- 
rable works  in  favour  of  presbytery  (Presbytcrianism  Defended,  pp. 
183-4,  203-4,)  mention  an  instance  of  a  minister  who  was  kept  for 
years  in  prison  for  having  refused  the  strumpet  of  a  gentleman  resi- 
dent in  his  parish  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  late  case  of 
the  Dean  of  York  shows  the  jurisdiction,  or  rather  total  want  of  juris- 
diction, which  the  prelate  possesses  over  the  clergy. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXi 

priests,  prelates,  and  primates,  have  no  authority 
whatever,  ecclesiastics  though  they  be,  to  control,  or 
even  to  modify,  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  a  lay  and 
civil  magistrate. 

So  anomalous  a  society  was  never  witnessed,  if 
society  it  can  be  called,  which  has  not  one  single  ele- 
ment of  an  organized  community, — which  consists  of 
a  mere  congeries  of  individual  atoms  without  laws 
enacted  by  themselves,  without  officers  appointed  by 
themselves,  or  powers  lodged  in  themselves,  which  has 
no  self-existing  attributes,  no  self-regulating  agency, 
which,  in  one  word,  has  not  one  single  element,  even 
the  most  essential  of  a  corporate  body.  Were  we 
disposed  to  push  our  arguments,  as  far  as  we  are 
warranted,  we  might  deny  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land is  a  Church  at  all.  For  let  it  be  observed  that, 
as  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  spiritual  power  cannot 
be  lodged  in  lay  or  civil  hands,  any  more  than  autho- 
rity to  administer  the  sacraments,  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  well  as  baptism,  and  to  confer  orders,  can  be  pos- 
sessed by  a  layman  or  a  woman;  and  as  all  priestly 
powers,  by  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  England, 
are  placed  in  the  sovereign — the  prelates  being  his 
mere  delegates,  (and  that,  whether  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  and  of  Edward  VI.,  they  are  obliged  to 
take  out  a  commission  to  empower  them  to  perform 
their  functions,  or  submit,  as  they  all  must  now  do, 
to  the  36th  canon;)  and  as,  moreover,  every  society 
must  possess  some  species  of  organization,  suited  to 
its  peculiar  character,  which  the  Church  of  England, 
as  a  Church,  does  not  possess,  it  raises  a  serious  ques- 
tion, whether  that  can  be  accounted  a  Church,  if  we 
are  to  take  our  ideas  of  a  Church  from  the  word  of 
God.  We  certainly  have  no  intention  whatsoever  to 
maintain,  as  so  many  of  them  do  regarding  us,  that 
the  individuals  who  compose  that  Church  are  cast 
out  to  the  "uncovenanted  mercies  of  God;"  for  we 
rejoice  to  know  that  the  grace  of  God  is  not  restrained 
by  any  external  impediments;  and  we  rejoice  further 
to  know,  that  there  are  many  of  God's  chosen  ones  in 
communion  with  that  Church,  as  we  doubt  not  was 


xxu 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


also  the  case  even  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  during 
the  middle  ages;  but  as  a  Church,  or  scripturally  con- 
stituted society,  we  dare  not  but  have  considerable 
difficulty  in  recognizing  it.* 

The  Erastian  thraldom  to  which  the  Church  of 
England  has  been  reduced,  cannot  but  be  galling  to 
all  her  rightly  constituted  clergy,  and  we  so  deeply 
sympathize  with  them,  that  we  put  the  most  favour- 
able construction  upon  all  their  apologies  for  them- 
selves.  We  cannot,  however,  lend  the  same  indul- 
gence to  their  attempts  to  prove  that  theirs  is  the  best 
possible  constitution,  any  more  than  we  could  listen 
with  any  patience  to  a  West  Indian  slave,  who  should 
shake  his  fetters  in  our  face  as  an  evidence  of  the 
superior  advantages  of  slavery.  Even  this,  how- 
ever, we  might  pass  with  a  sigh  for  the  degradation 
to  which  slavery  reduces  its  victims,  but  we  cannot 
extend  the  same  tolerance  to  their  libels  upon  other 
Churches  for  having  had  the  manliness  of  spirit  to 
assert  their  proper  liberty,  and  the  regard  to  the 
honour  of  Jesus  to  vindicate  his  sovereign  exclusive 
supremacy  in  his  own  Church.  And  yet  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  England  can  never  think  of  defend- 

*  When  Henry  VIII.  was  about  to  appoint  a  commission  to  ex- 
amine  the  state  of  the  religious  houses,  he,  with  one  stroke  of  his 
pen,  suspended  all  the  prelates  in  England  from  the  exercise  of  their 
jurisdictions.  He  afterwards,  at  the  humble  petition  of  each  prelate 
separately  presented,  was  graciously  pleased  to  restore  him  to  his 
functions  by  a  commission,  in  which  it  was  distinctly  specified  that 
he  was  to  regard  himself  as  the  mere  vicar  of  the  crown.  The  terms 
of  these  commissions  are  sufficiently  startling  to  any  man  who  has 
not  sounded  the  lowest  depths  of  Erastianism.  We  "rnay  give  a  con- 
densed summary  of  one  clause  of  these  singular  instruments:  "Since 
all  authority,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  flows  from  the  crown,  and  since 
Cromwell,"  (a  mere  layman,  but  made  vicar  general  in  spiritualibus 
over  all  the  clergy)  "  to  whom  (and  not  to  the  prelates)  the  ecclesias- 
tical  part  has  been  committed,"  (vices  nostras  as  the  vicar  of  the 
crown",  "  is  so  occupied,  that  he  cannot  fully  exercise  it,  we  commit 
to  you  (each  individual  prelate)  the  license  of  ordaining;  granting 
institution  and  collation;  and,  in  short,  of  performing  all  other  eccle- 
siastical acts;  and  we  allow  you  to  hold  this  authority  during  our 
pleasure,  as  you  must  answer  to  God  and  to  us!"  Similar  commis- 
sions were  granted  by  Edward  VI.  to  his  prelates.  Seethe  originals 
in  Collier  (fol.)  ii.  rec.  Nos.  31,  41;  or  Barham's  ed.  ix.  pp.  123,  157; 
Burnet,  i.  rec.  b.  iii.  No.  14  ;  and  ii.  No.  2 ;  or  London  8vo.  ed.  1839  ; 
iv.  pp.  104,  249. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXih 


ing  his  own  Church,  but  he  must  at  the  same  time 
attack  the  Churches  of  others,  and  especially  the 
Church  of  Scotland.*  Just  notice  the  self-complacent 
absurdity  of  the  following  passage  from  the  last  page 
of  the  work  noticed  in  the  preceding  note,  by  the  pre- 
sent bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man:  "Compare,"  says 
Dr.  Short,  addressing  men  who  are  too  ignorant  to 
be  capable  of  instituting  a  comparison,  or  too  pre- 
judiced to  be  able  to  pass  an  impartial  judgment, 
"compare  what  took  place  in  Scotland  with  what 
took  place  in  England,  at  the  period  of  the  Reforma- 
tion;" and  after  showing  some  of  those  things  which 
did  take  place  in  England,  and  stating  that  "  the 
admirer  of  our  Episcopal  Church — our  apostolic  estab- 
lishment" must  thank  the  timid,  if  not  the  time-serv- 
ing and  Erastian  Cranmer,  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  reformed  precisely  as  she  was,  and  that  it  did 
not  happen  there  as  it  did  happen  among  us — we  have 
Dr.  Short's  word  for  it — "  that  the  force  of  the  multi- 
tude ...  in  Scotland  (had)  thrown  down  what  the  Epis- 
copalians will  consider  as  almost  the  Church  itself." 

And  who,  pray,  composed  that  "  multitude"  of 
which  Dr.  Short  speaks  so  very  contemptuously? 
The  Christian  people  of  Scotland,  who  through  "  the 
unction  of  the  Holy  One,"  had,  by  an  ordination 
higher  than  the  Church  of  England  can  confer,  been 
made  a  "royal  priesthood;"  and  who,  both  by  their 
position  in  the  Church,  and  by  their  qualification, 
were  thus  entitled  and  bound  by  more  authoritative 
"injunctions"  than  ever  emanated  from  prince  or 
prelate,  to  "  try  the  spirits,"  and  not  accept  of  any 
man  to  be  minister  over  them,  unless,  as  his  creden- 
tials, he  brought  with  him,  not  "letters  of  orders,"  or 
an  excerpt  from  a  pretended  apostolical  genealogy, 
but  the  gifts,  graces,  and  gospel  of  the  living  God. 
And,  pray,  what  horrible  acts  did  this  same  "  multi- 
tude" commit,  which  should  be  so  enormous  as  to 

*  Sec  some  specimens  of  this  line  of  defence  and  attack,  which 
would  be  amusing  enough  from  their  ludicrousncss,  if  they  were  not 
pitiable  from  the  perversity  of  judgment  they  display,  in  Dr.  Short's 
Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  104,  242-3,  198, 
and  elsewhere. 


XXiv  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


lead  "  an  episcopalian  to  consider  that  they  had  almost 
thrown  down  the  Church  itself?"  Why,  they  just 
followed  where  their  ministers  led  them — no  great 
crime,  one  should  suppose,  in  the  eyes  of  a  prelate; 
and  also,  in  conformity  with  the  prophetic  enuncia- 
tion of  their  God-commissioned  apostle,  they  fancied, 
that  the  "  best  way  to  prevent  the  rooks  from  return- 
ing was  to  pull  down  their  nests,"  a  proceeding,  the 
prophetic  sagacity  of  which  has  been  demonstrated 
by  the  history  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  whose 
dark  cloisters  rooks  have  continued  to  roost  ever  since 
the  Reformation,  to  which  as  their  safe  retreats  they 
betake  themselves  whenever  the  moral  effulgence  of 
the  truth  becomes  painful  to  their  distempered  optics, 
and  from  which,  as  at  present,  they  come  forth  in 
darkening  clouds  whenever  the  fields  seem  ripe  for 
their  pillage.  But  let  us  return  to  the  history  of  the 
Anglican  Reformation. 

When  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  Popery,  as 
restored  by  Mary,  was  the  established  religion.  Those 
Protestants  who  had,  in  the  words  of  Fuller,  "con- 
trived to  weather  out  the  storm"  of  Mary's  persecu- 
tions at  home  in  England,  depending  upon  the  pro- 
testantism of  the  daughter  of  Anne  Boleyn,  the  early 
patroness  of  the  Reformation,  now  ventured  to  cele- 
brate public  worship  according  to  the  liturgy  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  This  was  done  with  still  more  zeal  by  the 
exiles  who  had  fled  to  the  continent  to  avoid  the 
persecution  of  Mary,  and  had  now  returned  in  the 
hope  of  enjoying  liberty  of  conscience  in  their  native 
land.  Elizabeth,  however, had  hitherto  done  nothing 
to  indicate  that  she  was  favourable  to  the  reformed 
faith,  but  much  to  the  contrary.  She  had  been 
crowned  according  to  the  forms  of  the  popish  pontifi- 
cal, of  which  a  high  mass  was  an  essential  part.  The 
exiles,  however,  presuming  at  least  upon  a  toleration, 
began  to  celebrate  public  worship  according  to  the 
reformed  ritual,  and  to  preach  to  the  people  the  un- 
searchable riches  of  Christ.  Elizabeth,  when  appriz- 
ed of  this  proceeding,  issued  a  proclamation,  forbid- 
ding all  preaching,  and  the  use  of  Edward's  liturgy, 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


XXV 


and  commanding  that  in  public  worship  the  missal  in 
Latin  should  be  employed,  except  the  litany,  the 
Lord's  prayer,  and  the  creed,  which  were  tolerated 
in  English.  The  only  instruction  to  be  given  to  the 
people  consisted  of  the  "  gospel  and  the  epistles  of  the 
day,"  with  the  ten  commandments,  which  were  allow- 
ed to  be  read  in  the  English  tongue.  Religion,  through- 
out this  year  (1558)  continued  precisely  as  it  had 
been  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  was  celebrated  by 
precisely  the  same  priests,  with  the  addition  of  so 
many  of  the  exiles  as  had  returned,  and  the  few  Pro- 
testants who  had  remained  at  home.* 

Elizabeth,  however,  was  aware  that  some  altera- 
tion in  religion  must  be  made.  Accordingly,  about 
the  period  at  which  she  summoned  her  first  parlia- 
ment, she  appointed  certain  divines,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  Secretary  Sir  Thomas  Smith,  to  prepare  a 
liturgy  which  might  be  laid  before  the  legislature. 
These  divines  were  instructed  to  compare  Edward's 
two  liturgies  with  the  popish  offices,  and  to  frame 
such  a  form  of  prayer  as  might  suit  the  circumstances 
of  the  times.  They  were,  however,  to  give  a  prefer- 
ence to  Edward's  first  liturgy,  which  retained  many 
popish  dogmas  and  usages,  in  all  matters  to  be  very 
wary  of  innovations,  and  especially,  to  leave  all  mat- 
ters in  discussion  between  the  Protestants  and  the 
Papists  so  undefined,  and  expressed  in  such  general 
terms  as  not  to  offend  the  latter.  Elizabeth's  great 
desire  in  this,  and,  indeed,  in  all  her  measures,  was  to 
comprehend  the  Papists  in  any  form  of  religion  which 
might  be  established.  She  never  seems  to  have  enter- 
tained any  desire  to  conciliate  or  concede  any  thing 
to  her  Protestant  subjects. 

The  divines  having  finished  their  work,  brought 
the  draft  of  a  liturgy  to  Cecil,  in  order  to  its  being 
submitted  to  her  majesty.  Before  presenting  it  to 
parliament  Elizabeth  made  various  important  altera- 
tions on  it,  all  for  the  express  purpose  of  reducing  it  to 
a  nearer  conformity  to  the  popish  liturgies,  and  thus 
conciliating  the  Papists.    It  were  altogether  beyond 

»  Strypc's  Annals  i.  59,  74,  77;  Burnet  ii.  585;  Collier  vi.  200. 


XXVi  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


our  present  limits  to  give  a  minute  enumeration  of  the 
various  alterations  introduced  by  Elizabeth  into  the 
draft  presented  to  her  by  the  divines,  or  to  show  in 
what,  and  how  many  particulars,  her  prayer-book, 
which  (with  a  few  verbal  alterations  since  introduced) 
is  the  liturgy  at  present  in  use  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, is  still  more  popish  than  even  that  which  was 
in  use  at  the  death  of  Edward.  A  few,  however, 
must  be  mentioned.* 

In  the  litany  of  Edward's  second  liturgy  there  was 
a  prayer  in  the  following  terms : — "  From  the  tyranny 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormi- 
ties, good  Lord  deliver  us."  This  was  cancelled  in 
the  liturgy  of  Elizabeth, — we  can  be  at  no  loss  to 
divine  for  what  reason.  In  the  communion  office  of 
the  former,  when  the  minister  delivered  the  bread  to 
the  communicant,  he  said,  "Take,  and  eat  this,  in  re- 
membrance that  Christ  died  for  thee,  and  feed  on  him 
in  thine  heart  by  faith,  with  thanksgiving;"  and 
when  he  delivered  the  cup,  he  said,  "  Drink  this  in 
remembrance  that  Christ's  blood  was  shed  for  thee, 
and  be  thankful," — clearly  implying  that  it  was  mere- 
ly an  eucharistic  commemoration,  rendered  efficacious 
only  through  faith.  In  the  communion  office  of  the 
latter,  the  priest,  in  handing  the  bread,  said  to  the 
communicant,  "  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
which  was  given  for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and 
soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Take  and  eat  this,"  &c. 
And  when  delivering  the  cup,  "The  blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed  for  thee,  preserve 
thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Drink  this," 
&c. — words  that  were  expressly  intended  to  imply  the 
real  presence,  and  an  opus  operatum  efficacy,  with- 

*  Those  who  desire  fuller  information,  we  recommend  to  study  Dr. 
Cardwcll's  History  of  Conferences  on  the  Boole  of  Common  Prayer ; 
the  two  Liturgies  of  Edward  VI.  compared,  bv  the  same  author;  Dr. 
Short's  Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  537—549  ; 
Collier's  History,  vi.  248—250;  and  Records,  No.  77;  Strype's  An- 
nals,  i.  98 — 123;  see  also  Baillie's  Parallel  of  the  Liturgy  with  the 
Mass  Book,  the  Breviary,  and  other  Romish  Rituals,  4to.,  1641; 
Wheatlcy's  Rationale  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the  other 
Ritualists  ;  Palmer's  Origincs  Liturgicae.  Burnet,  Neal,  and  the  other 
historians,  all  take  up  the  subject,  but  very  imperfectly. 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


xxvii 


out  any  regard  whatever  to  the  faith  or  spiritual  con- 
dition of  the  communicant.  In  order  to  prevent  the 
idea  that  when  kneeling  was  retained  as  the  required 
posture  at  the  communion,  it  was  intended  to  imply 
that  Christ  was  bodily  present,  or  that  any  adoration 
was  designed  to  be  given  to  the  elements,  a  rubric 
was  added  to  the  office  in  Edward's  second  prayer- 
book,  which  declared  that  the  elements  remained 
unchanged,  and  that  no  adoration  was  given  them. 
This  rubric  was  omitted  in  Elizabeth's  prayer-book, 
and  the  communicant  was  left  to  believe  and  to  adore 
as  he  had  been  accustomed  to  do.  The  divines  who 
had  drawn  up  Elizabeth's  liturgy  left  it  to  the  choice 
of  the  communicant  himself  to  receive  the  communion 
kneeling  or  standing;  Elizabeth  made  it  imperative 
upon  all  to  receive  it  kneeling.  These  divines,  be- 
sides, had  disapproved  of  any  distinction  being  made 
between  the  vestments  worn  by  the  ministers  while 
celebrating  the  cucharist,  and  those  worn  at  other 
parts  of  the  service;  Elizabeth,  however,  made  it  im- 
perative on  the  officiating  priest  to  administer  the 
sacrament  in  the  old  popish  vestments,  as  was  the 
case  in  Edward's  first  liturgy,  but  had  been  altered 
in  the  second;  and  in  order  that  the  benighted  Papists 
might,  by  act  of  parliament,  and  of  the  supremacy 
royal,  have  every  encouragement  to  continue  in  their 
idolatry,  it  was  ordered  that  the  bread  should  be 
changed  into  the  wafer  formerly  used  at  private 
masses.  Not  satisfied  with  the  popish  innovations  she 
had  already  made,  and  seemingly  apprehensive  that 
if  she  went  at  once  so  far  as  she  felt  inclined  in  her  re- 
trogression towards  Rome,  she  might  find  some  diffi- 
culty in  carrying  the  prelates  and  the  parliament 
along  with  her,  Elizabeth  introduced  into  the  act  of 
uniformity  (to  which  we  shall  allude  immediately)  a 
clause  by  which  she  was  empowered  "  to  ordain  and 
publish  such  further  rites  and  ceremonies  as  should  be 
most  for  the  reverence  of  Christ's  holy  mysteries  and 
sacraments;"  words  of  ominous  import;  and,  as  we 
have  already  stated,  she  told  Parker  that  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  power  thus  conferred  upon  her, 


XXVlii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


"  she  would  not  have  agreed  to  divers  orders  of  the 
book."* 

The  liturgy  having  been  thus  prepared  was  intro- 
duced into  parliament,  in  a  bill  for  "  Uniformity  of 
prayer,  and  administration  of  sacraments,"  and  passed 
through  the  Commons,  seemingly  without  opposition, 
in  the  short  space  of  three  days.  It  met  with  some 
opposition  in  the  upper  house  from  a  few  of  the  popish 
prelates  and  peers,  but  was  carried,  without  one  word 
being  altered,  by  a  most  triumphant  majority;  and 
having  received  the  royal  assent,  became  law. 

The  population  of  England  at  this  time  consisted 
of  two  great  parties,  Puritans  and  Papists,  with  of 
course  some  neutrals,  who  were  prepared  to  join 
either  party  according  as  their  interests  might  seem  to 
dictate.  Both  of  these  great  parties  differed,  as  in 
every  thing  else,  so  also  in  their  estimation  of  the 
prayer-book.  We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  opin- 
ions and  the  conduct  of  each  of  these  parties  in  regard 
to  the  newly  imposed  liturgy. 

The  intrinsic  character  of  the  Anglican  liturgy  may 
be  very  safely  inferred  from  the  sources  whence  it 
was  drawn,  and  the  estimation  in  which  it  was  held 
by  Papists.  In  regard  to  the  former,  it  is  known  to 
all  in  any  measure  conversant  with  the  subject,  that 
the  book  of  common  prayer  was  taken  from  the  Ro- 
mish service-book.  "  In  our  public  services,"  says 
the  present  bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man,  "  the  greater 
part  of  the  book  of  common  prayer  is  taken  from  the 
Roman  ritual."  Again, — "  In  giving  an  account  of 
the  common  prayer  book,  it  will  be  more  correct  to 
describe  it  as  a  work  compiled  from  the  services  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  or  rather  as  a  translation  than 
as  an  original  composition."  Again,  speaking  of 
Edward's  first  prayer-book,  of  which,  indeed,  he  spoke 
in  both  the  preceding  instances,  he  says,  "  almost  the 
whole  of  it  was  taken  from  different  Roman  catholic 

*  Peirce's  Vindic.  of  Dis.  p.  47,  ?trype,  Burnet,  Collier,  &C,  fancy 
that  some  of  these  alterations  were  introduced  by  parliament,  but 
Dr.  Cardwell  has  shown  that  they  were  the  work  of  Elizabeth  ;  see 
Cardwell's  History  of  Conf.  pp.  21,  22. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXIX 

services,  particularly  those  after  the  use  of  Salisbury, 
which  were  then  generally  adopted  in  the  south  of 
England,  and  the  principle  on  which  the  compilers 
proceeded  in  the  work  was  to  alter  as  little  as  possible 
what  had  been  familiar  to  the  people.  Thus  the  litany 
is  nearly  the  same  as  in  the  Salisbury  hours."  Speak- 
ing of  the  Anglican  ordination  office,  he  says,  "its 
several  parts  are  taken  from  that  in  use  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,"  with  few  exceptions,  which  he  mentions. 
In  a  note,  he  states  that  those  parts  of  the  liturgy 
which  were  not  taken  from  the  service  books  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  were  drawn  from  a  prayer-book 
compiled  about  this  time  by  Hasrman,  the  popish 
bishop  of  Cologne.*  Edward's  second  prayer-book 
was  a  revised  edition  of  the  first,  omitting  some  of 
the  grosser  abominations  of  Popery  which  the  first 
contained.  The  present  prayer-book  of  the  Church 
of  England  stands  about  half-way  between  the  first 
and  second  of  Edward,  and  was,  as  we  have  seen 
above,  taken  almost  verbatim  from  the  popish  ser- 
vice book.  Such,  then,  is  the  parentage  of  "  our 
apostolic  prayer-book — our  incomparable  liturgy — 
our  inestimable  service  book,"  of  which  even  evan- 
gelical members  of  the  Church  of  England  cannot 
speak  in  terms  sufficiently  expressive  of  their  rap- 
turous admiration. 

Bearing  all  this  in  mind,  we  shall  cease  to  feel  any 
surprise  at  the  fact  mentioned  by  all  historians  of  the 
period,  that  so  well  satisfied  were  the  Papists  with 
the  Reformed  (so  termed)  services,  and  so  little  dif- 
ference did  they  discover  between  the  modern  and 
the  ancient  ritual,  that  for  the  first  ten  years  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign  they  continued,  "without  doubt  or  scru- 
ple," as  Heylin  says,  to  attend  public  worship  in  the 
Church  of  England.  Indeed,  as  all  acknowledge, 
who  know  any  thing  of  the  subject,  if  the  court  of 
Rome  had  not  altered  its  policy  towards  England, 
excommunicated  Elizabeth,  and  forbidden  her  sub- 
jects to  attend  the  Established  Church,  the  Papists 


*  Sketch  of  the  History,  &c.,  201,  537,  510,  541. 


XXX 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


would  have  remained  conscientiously  convinced,  that 
in  worshipping  in  the  Anglican  establishment,  they 
were  still  attending  upon  the  Romish  services ;  so 
imperceptible  to  their  well-practised  senses  was  the 
difference  between  the  two,  and  so  well  did  the  com- 
pilers of  the  prayer-book  or  the  revisers  of  their  work 
accomplish  the  task  prescribed  to  them  by  the  queen, 
viz.  to  frame  a  liturgy  which  should  not  offend  the 
Papists.*  Nay,  but  what  is  more,  when  a  copy  of 
the  prayer-book  had  been  sent  to  the  Pope,  so  well 
was  he  satisfied  with  it,  that  he  offered,  through  his 
nuncio  Parpalia,  to  ratify  it  for  England,  if  the  queen 
would  only  own  the  supremacy  of  the  see  of  Rome.t 
Such  was  the  estimation  in  which  the  Pope  and  his 
followers  held  the  prayer-book,  which  Anglicans  now 
can  never  mention  without  exhausting  all  the  super- 
latives in  the  vocabulary  of  commendation  to  express 
their  most  unbounded  admiration  of  "  our  inimitable, 
inestimable,  incomparable,  apostolic,  (?)  and  all  but 
inspired  liturgy."  Nothing  strikes  so  painfully  upon 
the  ear  as  to  hear  a  man  of  evangelical  sentiments 
utter  such  hyperboles  in  laudation  of  a  Popish  com- 
pilation, which  even  antichrist  offered  to  sanction. 
In  attempting  to  account  for  so  startling  a  phenome- 
non, we  have  heard  men  less  charitable  than  our- 
selves surmise,  that  the  only  principle  on  which  it 
can  be  accounted  for  is,  that  the  less  intrinsic  merit 
any  object  possesses,  the  more  loudly  must  it  be 
praised,  to  secure  for  it  popular  acceptance.  For  our 
own  parts  we  must  say  we  rank  the  matter  under 
the  category  de  gttstibus,  &c,  and  say  there  is  no 

*  Sir  George  Paule  relates  in  his  panegyric  on  Wliitgift,  that  an 
Italian  Papist,  lately  arrived  in  England,  on  seeing  that  ambitious 
primate  in  the  cathedral  of  Canterbury  one  Sabbath,  "  attended  upon 
by  an  hundred  of  his  own  servants  at  least,  in  livery,  whereof  there 
were  forty  gentlemen  in  chains  of  gold;  also  by  the  dean,  prebenda- 
ries, and  preachers,  in  their  surplices  and  scarlet  hoods,  and  heard 
the  solemn  music,  with  the  voices  and  organs,  cornets  and  sackbuts, 
he  was  overtaken  with  admiration,  and  told  an  English  gentleman, 
that  unless  it  were  in  the  Pope's  chapel,  he  never  saw  a  more  solemn 
sight,  or  heard  a  more  heavenly  sound." — Wordworth's  Eccl.  Biog., 
iv.  388-9. 

t  Strype's  An.,  i.  340.    Burnet,  ii.  645.    Collier,  vi.  308—9. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXXi 

disputing  about  taste.  And  if  members  of  the  Church 
of  England  were  satisfied  with  enjoying  it  them- 
selves, without  thrusting  it  upon  other  people,  and  if 
moreover  they  did  not,  as  some  of  them  do,  place  it 
upon  a  level  with  the  Bible,  we  should  for  our  own 
part  be  as  little  disposed  to  deny  them  its  use  as  we 
certainly  are  to  envy  them  its  possession. 

The  commendations  bestowed  by  Papists  upon  the 
Anglican  prayer-book  might  of  itself  lead  us  to  infer 
that  it  did  not  satisfy  the  Reformers;  and  the  conclu- 
sion thus  arrived  at  is  as  much  in  accordance  with 
historic  facts  as  it  is  the  result  of  logical  accuracy. 
The  continental  Reformers  to  a  man  expressed  both 
contempt  and  indignation  towards  the  Anglican  litur- 
gy. Calvin*  declared,  that  he  found  in  it  many 
(tolerabihs  ineptias),  i.  e.,  "tolerable  fooleries;" 
that  is,  tolerable  for  the  moment,  as  children  are 
allowed  (to  use  quaint  old  Fuller's  illustration)  to 
"play  with  rattles  to  get  them  to  part  with  knives." 
Knoxt  declared,  that  it  contained  "diabolical  inven- 
tions, viz.,  crossing  in  baptism,  kneeling  at  the  Lord's 
table,  mumbling  or  singing  of  the  liturgy,"  &c,  and 
"that  the  whole  order  of  (the)  book  appeared  rather 
to  be  devised  for  upholding  of  massing  priests,  than 
for  any  good  instruction  which  the  simple  people  can 
thereof  receive."  Beza,l  writing  to  Bullinger  about 
ttie  state  of  England  and  the  English  Church,  says, 
"  I  clearly  perceive  that  Popery  has  not  been  ejected 
from  that  kingdom,  but  has  been  only  transferred 
from  the  Pope  to  the  queen;  and  the  only  aim  of 
parties  in  power  there  is  to  bring  back  matters  to  the 
state  in  which  they  formerly  stood.  I  at  one  time 
thought  that  the  only  subject  of  contention  (between 
the  Puritans  and  the  Conformists)  was  about  caps 
and  external  vestments;  but  I  now,  to  my  inexpres- 
sible sorrow,  understand  that  it  is  about  very  differ- 

*  Epist.  p.  28,  t.  ix.  ed.  1667. 

t  Calderwood's  History,  (Wodrow  ed.),  i.  431.  See  the  whole  let- 
ter, pp.  425—434. 

t  Strype's  An.  ii.  Rec.  No.  29.  The  whole  letter  deserves  a  care- 
ful perusal. 


XXX'ii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


ent  matters  indeed,"  even  the  most  vital  and  fun- 
damental elements  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  the 
sequel  of  the  letter  shows.*  Beza  concludes  by  say- 
ing, "  such  is  the  state  of  the  Anglican  Church,  ex- 
ceedingly miserable,  and  indeed,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
intolerable."  We  might  quote  similar  sentiments 
from  other  continental  divines,  such  as  Bullinger  and 
Gualter,  and  may  perhaps  do  so  ere  we  close.  But 
since  the  opinions  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  them- 
selves will  be,  in  the  circumstances,  of  more  import- 
ance, and  since  we  are  very  much  hampered  for  want 
of  space,  we  come  at  once  to  the  recorded  judgment 
which  these  great  and  good  men  passed  upon  the 
prayer-book  and  the  Church  of  England. 

The  opinions  of  Grindal,  successively  bishop  of 
London  and  archbishop  of  York  and  Canterbury ;  of 
Sandys,  successively  bishop  of  Worcester  and  Lon- 
don, and  archbishop  of  York :  of  Parkhurst  of  Nor- 
wich, Pilkington  of  Durham,  Jewell  of  Salisbury, 
and  others,  we  need  not  refer  to,  as  every  one  knows 
that  they  expressed  themselves  as  strongly  against 
the  state  of  the  Anglican  Church  as  Sampson,  Fox, 
Coverdale,  or  Humphreys.  The  only  prelates  of  the 
first  set  appointed  by  Elizabeth  who  are  claimed  by 
Anglicans  themselves,  as  having  been  in  favour  of 
the  reformed  condition  of  the  Church  of  England,  are 
Archbishop  Parker,  Cox  of  Ely,  and  Home  of  Win- 
chester, (as  for  Cheney  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  we 
give  him  up  an  avowed  Papist,)  and  if  we  show 
that  these  were  dissatisfied  with  the  condition  of  the 
Church  of  England,  even  her  apologists  must  acknow- 
ledge that  all  Elizabeth's  first  prelates  desired  that 
that  Church  should  be  further  reformed. 

Parker  was  one  of  the  compilers  of  the  prayer-book, 
and  we  have  already  seen  how  much  the  first  draft 
excelled  the  present  liturgy.  Even  after  it  had  been 
enjoined,  both  by  parliament  and  the  queen,  that  the 

*  The  vicar  of  Leeds  not  only  admits,  but  contends  that  Beza  was 
correct  in  stating  that  the  contention  entered  into  the  vital  elements 
of  Christianity.  See  Dr.  Hook's  Sermon,  a  Call  to  Union,  &.c,  2d 
ed.,  74,  75. 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


XXX1U 


communion  should  be  received  kneeling,  Parker  ad- 
ministered it  in  his  own  cathedral  to  the  .  communi- 
cants standing.*  At  the  very  time  when  he  was  per- 
secuting the  Puritans  for  nonconformity,  (1575,)  he 
wrote  Cecil,  "  Doth  your  lordship  think  that  I  care 
either  for  caps,  tippets,  surplices,  or  wafer  bread  or 
any  such?"t  And  Strype  says  expressly,  that  his 
"  pressing  conformity  to  the  queen's  laws  and  injunc- 
tions, proceeded  not  out  of  fondness  to  the  ceremonies 
themselves,"  which  he  would  willingly  see  altered, 
"but  for  the  laws  establishing  them  he  esteemed 
them."i  "  It  may  fairly  be  presumed,"  says  Bishop 
Short,  "  that  Parker  himself  entertained  some  doubts 
concerning  the  points  which  were  afterwards  disputed 
between  the  Puritans  and  the  high  church  party;  for 
in  the  questions  prepared  to  be  submitted  to  con- 
vocation in  1563,  probably  under  his  own  direction, 
and  certainly  examined  by  himself,"  for  his  annota- 
tions stand  yet  upon  the  margin  of  the  first  scroll, 
"there  are  several  which  manifestly  imply  that  such 
a  difference  of  opinion  might  prevail. "§  The  ques- 
tions here  alluded  to  by  Bishop  Short  embrace  most 
of  those  matters  which  were  at  first  disputed  between 
the  Puritans  and  conformists.  In  particular,  "  It  was 
proposed  that  all  vestments,  caps,  and  surplices,  should 
be  taken  away;  that  none  but  ministers  should  bap- 
tize ;  that  the  table  for  the  sacrament  should  not  stand 
altar-wise;  that  organs  and  curious  singing  should  be 
removed  ;  that  godfathers  and  godmothers  should  not 
answer  in  the  child's  name;"  and  several  other  mat- 
ters, which  were  then  loudly  complained  of,  but  which 
remain  in  the  Church  of  England  till  this  day.||  It 
was  only  after  he  had  been  scolded  into  irritation  by 
the  queen,  after  his  morose  and  sullen  disposition  and 
despotic  temper  had  been  chafed  and  inflamed  by  the 
resistance  of  the  Puritans,  and  he  felt  or  fancied  that 
his  character  and  the  honour  of  his  primacy  were  in 

*  .McCrie's  Life  of  Knox,  6th  ed.,  p.  64,  note. 

+  Strype's  Parker,  ii.  424.  t  Ibid.  p.  528. 

§  Sketch,  &c.,  p.  250. 

U  Burnet,  iii.  457,  456.    Strype's  Parker,  i.  386.    Rec.  No.  39. 


XXXiV  THE  ANGLICAN  REF0RB1ATI0N. 


jeopardy,  that  Parker  committed  himself  to  that  course 
of  persecution  which  has  "damned  his  name  to  ever- 
1  lasting  infamy."  Had  he  even  the  inquisitor's  plea 
of  conscience,  however  unenlightened,  to  urge  in  his 
own  defence,  some  apology,  how  inadequate  soever, 
might  be  made  for  him.  But  Parker  was  a  perse- 
cutor only  from  passion,  or  at  best  from  policy.*  Par- 
ker himself  then  was  inclined  to  a  further  reformation 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

As  to  Cox  again:  in  a  letter  to  Bullinger,  in  1551, 
we  find  him  writing  thus: — "  I  think  all  things  in  the 
Church  ought  to  be  pure  and  simple,  removed  at  the 
greatest  distance  from  the  pomp  and  elements  of  the 
world.  But  in  this  our  Church  what  can  I  do  in  so 
low  a  station?"  (he  was  then,  if  we  rightly  remember, 
only  archdeacon  of  Ely:)  "  I  can  only  endeavour  to 
persuade  our  bishops  to  be  of  the  same  mind  with 
myself.  This  I  wish  truly,  and  I  commit  to  God  the 
care  and  conduct  of  his  own  work."t  In  the  follow- 
ing year  we  find  him  complaining  bitterly  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  courtiers  to  the  introduction  of  ecclesi- 
astical discipline,  and  predicting  that  if  it  were  not 
adopted,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  would  be  taken  away 
from  them."J  After  his  return  from  exile,  he  joined 
with  Grindal  (whose  scruples  in  accepting  a  bishopric 
were  hushed  only  by  all  the  counsels  and  exhortations 
of  Peter  Martyr,  Bullinger,  and  Gualter)§  and  the 
other  bishops  elect  in  employing  the  most  strenuous 
efforts  to  effect  a  more  thorough  reformation  in  the 
Church  of  England,  before  they  should  accept  of 
dioceses  in  it.  When  they  found  that  they  could  not 
succeed,  they  seriously  deliberated  whether  they  could 
accept  preferments  in  so  popish  a  Church.  At  last 
they  were  induced  to  yield  to  the  counsels  of  Bul- 

*  Bishop  Short  candidly  acknowledges,  that  "  when  Parker  and 
the  other  bishops  had  begun  to  execute  the  laws  against  nonconfor- 
mists, they  must  have  been  more  than  men,"  or  less,  "if  they  could 
divest  their  own  minds  of  that  personality  which  every  one  must  feel 
when  engaged  in  a  controversy  in  which  the  question  really  is, 
whether  he  shall  be  able  to  succeed  in  carrying  his  plans  into  execu- 
tion."   Sketch,  &c,  p.  251. 

t  Burnet,  iii.  303—4.  t  Strype's  Mem.  Ref.  ii.  366. 

§  Strype's  Grindal,  41—44,  Ap.  No.  11. 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


XXXV 


linger  and  Gualter,  and  other  continental  divines 
whom  they  consulted,  because  the  rites  imposed  were 
not  in  themselves  necessarily  sinful;  because  they 
anticipated  that  when  elevated  to  the  mitre,  they 
should  have  power  to  effect  the  reformation  they 
desired,  and  because,  moreover,  by  occupying  the 
sees  they  might  exclude  Lutherans  and  Papists,  who 
would  not  only  not  reform,  but  would  bring  back  the 
Church  still  further  towards  Rome.*  Even  Cox,  then, 
desired  further  reformation  in  the  Church  of  England, 
and  was  so  dissatisfied  with  its  condition,  that  not- 
withstanding of  the  gold  and  power  it  would  bestow, 
(and  both  of  them  he  loved  dearly)  he  scrupled  to 
accept  a  bishopric  within  its  pale.  When  we  bear  in 
mind  his  conduct  at  Frankfort,  and  his  subsequent 
career  in  England,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the 
Church  that  was  too  popish  for  Cox  had  certainly  but 
few  pretensions  to  the  name  either  of  Reformed  or  Pro- 
testant. 

And  finally,  as  to  Home,  he  not  only  had  scruples 
at  first,  like  the  rest,  as  to  accepting  a  bishopric,  but 
when  he  found  that  the  reformation  he  anticipated 
he  should  be  able  to  effect  after  his  elevation  could 
not  be  accomplished,  he  deliberated  with  himself,  and 
consulted  with  the  continental  divines,  whether  it 
did  not  become  his  duty  to  resign  his  preferments. 
In  conjunction  with  Grindal,  he  wrote  for  advice  to 
Gualter,  asking,  whether,  under  the  circumstances, 
he  thought  they  could  with  a  safe  conscience  continue 
in  their  sees.  Gualter  induced  Bullinger,  whose  in- 
fluence was  greater,  to  answer  the  question  submitted 
to  him.  Bullinger  accordingly  replied,  that  if,  upon 
a  conscientious  conviction,  it  should  appear  that,  upon 
the  whole,  and  all  things  considered,  it  were  better  to 
remain,  then  it  became  their  duty  to  occupy  their 
places,  but  if  the  reverse,  then  it  was  as  clearly  their 
duty  to  renounce  them.  He  cautions  them,  however, 
against  imagining,  that  because  he  gives  this  counsel, 
he  therefore,  in  any  manner,  approved  of  the  con- 
duct of  those  who  were  for  retaining  "Papistical 


*  Slrype's  An.  ii.  263.    Strypc's  Grindal,  41—49,  438. 


XXXVi  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


dregs."  On  the  contrary,  he  urges,  with  the  greatest 
warmth,  that  the  queen  and  the  rulers  of  the  nation 
should  he  importuned  to  proceed  further  with  the 
Reformation,  and  that,  among  other  reasons,  lest  the 
Church  of  England  should  remain  "  polluted  with 
Popish  dregs  and  offscourings,  or  afford  any  ground 
of  complaint  to  the  neighbour  Churches  of  Scotland 
and  France."  Further  information  on  this  subject 
will  be  found  in  the  note  below.* 

*  Since  attempts  have  been,  and  are  still  made,  to  represent  the 
divines  of  Zurich  as  having  been  satisfied  with  the  leng'.h  to  which 
reformation  was  carried  in  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  necessary  to 
show  that  the  very  reverse  is  the  truth.  Those  who  have  access  to 
the  work,  and  can  read  the  language,  we  would  recommend  to  peruse 
in  full  the  letters  sent  by  Grindal  and  Home  to  Bullinger  and  Gualter, 
and  the  answers  returned  by  these  divines,  as  they  appear  in  Burnet's 
Records,  B.  vi.  Nos.  75,  76,  62,  83,  87.  Those  who  cannot  read  the 
original,  may  form  some  idea  of  their  contents  from  the  translated 
Summary,  iii.  pp.  462 — 476. 

Grindal,  whose  scruples  were  never  removed,  and  who  therefore 
wrote  frequently  and  anxiously  to  foreign  divines  to  obtain  their  sanc- 
tion to  the  course  he  was  pursuing,  had,  in  conjunction  with  Home, 
written  to  Bullinger  and  Gualter,  requesting  further  counsel  regard- 
ing the  propriety  of  their  remaining  in  the  Church  of  England. 
Perceiving,  most  probnbh-,  the  wounded  state  of  the  consciences  of 
their  brethren  in  the  Lord,  Bullinger  and  Gualter  wrote  a  soothing  v 
reply,  saying  as  much  as  they  conscientiously  could  in  favour  of 
remaining  in  their  cures.  When  the  Anglican  prelates  received  this 
answer,  they  at  once  saw  that  the  judgment  of  those  eminent  foreign 
divines  would  go  far  to  stop  the  censures  which  the  Puritans  pro- 
nounced against  their  conforming  brethren  ;  and  although  the  letter 
was  strictly  private,  they  published  it.  As  soon  as  Bullinger  and 
Gualter  were  apprised  of  this  act,  they  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Earl  of 
Bedford,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Puritan  party,  complaining  of  the 
breach  of  confidence  of  which  Grindal  and  Home  had  been  guilty, 
and  explaining  the  circumstances  in  which  their  letter  had  been 
written,  deploring  that  it  had  been  made  the  occcasion  of  further  per- 
secution against  their  dear  brethren  in  Christ  (the  Puritans,)  and  urg- 
ing upon  the  good  Earl  to  proceed  strenuously  in  purifying  the 
Church  ol*  England  of  the  dregs  of  Popery,  which,  to  their  bitter  grief, 
they  found  were  still  retained  within  her.  When  Horn  and  Grindal 
learned  the  feelings  of  their  continental  correspondents,  they  sent 
them  a  most  submissive  and  penitential  apology.  In  reply,  Bullinger 
and  Gualter  mentioned  several  of  those  errors  still  existing  in  the 
Church  of  England,  which  they  urged  all  her  prelates  to  reform; 
such  as  subscriptions  to  new  articles  of  faith  and  discipline,  theatrical 
singing  in  churches,  accompanied  by  the  "crash  of  organs,"  baptism 
by  women,  the  interrogations  of  sponsors,  the  cross,  and  other  su- 
perstitious ceremonies  in  baptism,  kneeling  at  the  communion,  and 
the  use  of  wafer  bread  (which  Strype  informs  us  was  made  like  the 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXXV11 


Such,  then,  was  the  judgment  deliberately  formed 
and  often  repeated,  even  of  those  Anglican  High 
Church  prelates,  regarding  the  constitution  and  usages 

"  singing-  cakes"  formerly  used  in  private  masses,  Life  of  Parker,  ii. 
32 — 5,)  the  venal  dispensations  for  pluralities,  and  for  eating  flesh 
meat  in  Lent,  and  on  "fish  days,"  (which  dispensations  were  sold  in 
the  archbishop's  court,)  the  impediments  thrown  in  the  way  of  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  the  prohibition  to  testify  against,  to  oppose 
or  refuse  conformity  to  those  abuses,  the  restricting  all  ecclesiastical 
power  to  the  prelates;  and  conclude  by  imploring  them,  "in  the 
bowels  of  Jesus  Christ,"  to  purge  the  temple  of  God  from  such  Popish 
abominations.  In  reply  to  this  faithful  appeal,  poor  Grindal  and 
Home  write  a  very  penitent  and  submissive  letter,  which  we  cannot 
read  over  at  this  day  without  the  most  painful  emotion  at  the  condi- 
tion to  which  these  men  of  God  were  reduced  between  their  desire 
to  serve  God  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  and  their  scruples  of  conscience 
against  the  antichristian  impositions  to  which  they  were  subjected. 
The  drift  of  their  letter  was  to  show  that  they  had  no  power  to  reform 
the  evils  complained  of,  (and  which  they  condemn  and  deplore  as  much 
as  their  correspondents,)  and  that  either  they  must  remain  as  they 
are,  or  abandon  their  benefices,  and  see  them  filled  by  Papists,  who 
would  destroy  the  flock  of  Christ.  In  conclusion,  they  promise — 
but  we  must  give  their  promise  in  a  literal  translation — "  We  shall 
do  the  utmost  that  in  us  lies,  as  already  we  have  done,  in  the  last 
sessions  of  parliament  and  of  convocation,  and  that,  even  although 
our  future  exertions  should  be  as  fruitless  as  the  past,  that  all  the 
errors  and  abuses  whicli  yet  remain  in  the  Church  of  England  shall 
be  corrected,  expurgated  and  removed,  according  to  the  rule  and 
standard  of  the  word  of  God."  In  a  preceding  part  of  their  letter 
they  had  said,  that  "  although  they  might  not  be  able  to  effect  all 
they  desired,  they  should  not  yet  cease  their  exertions  until  they  had 
thrust  down  into  hell,  whence  they  had  arisen,"  certain  abuses  which 
they  mention.  And  are  these,  then,  the  men  who  are  to  be  regarded 
as  approving  of  the  extent  to  which  reformation  had  been  carried  in 
the  Church  of  England  ? 

We  have  given  the  sentiments  of  the  divines  of  Zurich  at  the  greater 
length,  because  some  of  their  letters  are,  till  this  day,  perverted,  as 
they  were  at  the  time  when  they  were  written.  Had  this  been  done 
only  by  Collier,  Heylin,  and  their  school,  we  should  not  take  any 
notice  of  it  in  our  present  sadly  limited  space.  But  when  such  writers 
as  Strype,  Cardwcll,  and  Short,  lend  their  names  to  palm  such  im- 
positions upon  the  public  mind,  it  is  necessary  at  once  to  show  what 
was  the  real  state  of  the  case.  Dr.  McCrie  (Life  of  Knox,  note  R.) 
has  charged  the  Anglican  prelates  with  having  given  "  partial  repre- 
sentations" to  the  foreign  divines  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  their 
sanction  to  the  state  of  matters  in  England  :  and  any  man  of  com- 
petent knowledge  of  the  subject,  who  reads  over  their  letters,  must  be 
painfully  aware,  that,  although  they  may  not  have  designed  it,  yet,  as 
was  so  very  natural  in  their  circumstances,  they  did  write  in  a  manner 
which  could  not  but  lead  their  correspondents  into  the  grossest  mis- 
takes. 


XXXviii        THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATIOX. 


of  the  Church  of  England.  We  should  much  deepen 
the  impression  we  desire  to  produce  upon  our  readers, 
had  we  space  also  to  give  the  sentiments  of  the  more 
evangelical  prelates;  of  Parkhursj,  for  example,  who, 
in  a  letter  to  Gualter  in  1573,  fervently  exclaims, — 
•'•'Oh,  would  to  God,  would  to  God,  that  now  at  last 
the  people  of  England  would  in  good  earnest  pro- 
pound to  themselves  to  follow  the  Church  of  Zurich 
as  the  most  perfect  pattern;"*  or  of  his  scholar  and 
fellow-prelate  Jewell,  who  calls  the  habits  enjoined 
upon  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England,  "  thea- 
trical vestments — ridiculous  trifles  and  relics  of  the 
Amorites,"  and  satirizes  those  who  submitted  to  wear 
them  as  men  "  without  mind,  sound  doctrine  or  morals, 
by  which  to  secure  the  approbation  of  the  people,  and 
who,  therefore,  wished  to  gain  their  plaudits  by  wear- 
ing a  comical  stage  dress."t  But  it  is  unnecessary. 
The  following  passage  from  a  High  Church  writer  of 
the  present  day  concedes  all  we  desire  to  establish. 
After  having  condemned  the  Erastianism  of  Cranmer, 
and  the  want  of  what  he  terms  "  catholic"  feeling 
and  spirit  in  his  coadjutors,  and  having  denounced 
Hooper  as  "  an  obstinate  Puritan — a  mere  dogged 
Genevan  preacher,"  (the  most  opprobrious  epithets  the 
writer  can  bestow,)  and  Coverdale  as  "  a  thorough 
Puritan  and  Genevan,  who  officiated  at  the  consecra- 
tion of  Archbishop  Parker  in  his  black  gown"  (in 
italics,  to  indicate  the  sacrilegious  profanation  of  the 
act — we  wonder  whether  it  invalidated  his  share,  or 
the  whole  of  the  proceeding,)  the  writer  proceeds 
thus : — 

"  The  immediate  successors,  however,  of  the  Re- 
formers, as  often  happens  in  such  cases,  went  further 
than  their  predecessors  did,  and  were  more  deeply 
imbued  with  the  feelings  of  the  day.  The  Episcopate, 
in  the  first  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  were 
successors  of"  Hooper  and  Coverdale,  almost  more 
than  they  were  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley ;  indeed,  it  was 

»  Strype's  An.  ii.  286-342. 

+  'See  many  such  passages  in  Dr.  McCrie's  note  last  referred  to, 
and  the  letters  in  Burnet's  Records. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  XXXix 


only  her  strong  Tudor  arm  that  kept  them  within 
decent  bounds,"  (that  is,  that  kept  them  from  assimi- 
lating the  Church  of  England  to  the  other  Reform- 
ed Churches. )  "  The  greater  part  of  them  posi- 
tively objected  to  the  surplice — including  Sandys, 
Grindal,  Pilkington,  Jewell,  Home,  Parkhurst,  Ben- 
tham,  and  all  the  leading  men  who  were  for  sim- 
plifying our  Church  ceremonial  in  that  and  other 
respects,  according  to  the  Genevan,  ( that  is,  Pres- 
byterian) model;  Archbishop  Parker  almost  stand- 
ing alone  with  the  queen  in  her  determination  to  up- 
hold the  former."  (And  we  have  already  seen  that 
he  was  about  as  little  enamoured  of  them  as  his  co- 
adjutors.) 

After  having  referred  to  some  of  Jewell's  letters  to 
the  foreign  divines  written  against  the  Anglican  cere- 
monies, the  writer  makes  an  observation  which  ought 
to  be  ever  present  to  the  minds  of  those  who  read  the 
censures  of  Jewell  and  his  contemporaries.  "It  was 
no  Roman  Catholic  ritual,  we  repeat,  of  which  he 
thus  expressed  himself,  but  our  own  doubly  reformed 
prayer-book — the  divine  service  as  now  performed.''''  * 
Who  now  are  the  lineal  descendants  and  proper  re- 
presentatives of  the  Anglican  Reformers? — the  Puri- 
tans who  desired  further  reformation,  or  those  who 
so  loudly  praise  our  "Catholic  Church,  our  apostolic 
establishment,"  and  vigorously  resist  every  attempt 
to  amend  the  most  glaring  corruptions  in  the  Church 
of  England  ?  We  wish  the  evangelical  party  would 
ponder  the  answer  that  question  must  receive : — we 
say,  the  evangelical  party,  for  we  are  aware  that 
high  churchmen,  if  they  moved  at  all,  would  move 
in  the  direction  of  Rome. 

Having  thus  shown  the  opinions  of  the  prelates 
regarding  the  constitution  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Church  of  England,  let  us  now  show  the  opinions  of 
the  inferior  clergy:  And  here  one  fact  may  stand 
for  all.  In  the  year  1562,  a  petition  was  presented 
to  the  lower  house  of  convocation,  signed  by  thirty- 
two  members,  most  of  them  exiles,  and  the  best  men 

*  British  Critic  for  October  1842,  330,  331. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


in  the  kingdom,  praying  for  the  following  alterations 
in  the  service  of  the  Church  of  England.  1.  That 
organs  might  be  disused,  responses  in  the  "  reading 
psalms"  discontinued,  and  the  people  allowed  to  sing 
the  psalms  in  metre,  as  was  the  custom  on  the  conti- 
nent, and  had  also  been  practised  by  the  English 
exiles,  not  only  when  there,  but  after  they  had  re- 
turned to  their  native  land,  and  as  was  also  the  case 
among  the  Puritans  when  they  non-conformed  to  (for 
they  never  seceded  or  dissented  from)  the  Church  of 
England,  of  which  they  could  never  be  said  to  have 
been  bona  fide  members.  2.  That  none  but  minis- 
ters should  be  allowed  to  baptize,  and  that  the  sign 
of  the  cross  should  be  abolished.  3.  That  the  impo- 
sition of  kneeling  at  the  communion  should  be  left  to 
the  discretion  of  each  bishop  in  his  own  diocese  ;  and 
one  reason  assigned  for  this  part  of  the  petition,  was, 
that  this  posture  was  abused  to  idolatry  by  the  igno- 
rant and  superstitious  populace.  4.  That  copes  and 
surplices  should  be  disused,  and  the  ministers  made 
to  wear  some  comely  and  decent  garment,  (such  as 
the  Geneva  gown,  which  all  the  early  Puritans  wore.) 
5.  That,  as  they  expressed  it  themselves,  "  The  min- 
isters of  the  word  and  sacrament  be  not  compelled  to 
wear  such  gowns  and  caps  as  the  enemies  of  Christ's 
gospel  have  chosen  to  be  the  special  array  of  their 
priesthood."  6.  That  certain  words  in  Article  33, 
be  mitigated,  which  have  since  been  omitted  alto- 
gether. 7.  That  saints'  days  might  be  abolished,  or 
kept  only  for  public  worship,  (and  not  as  was  then 
the  case  for  feasting,  jollity,  superstition,  and  sin,) 
after  which  ordinary  labour  might  be  carried  on. 

This  petition  was  eventually  withdrawn,  and  an- 
other very  much  to  the  same  purpose  substituted  for 
it.  This  second  petition  prayed  for  the  following 
alterations: — 1.  That  saints'  days  be  abolished,  but 
all  Sundays,  and  the  principal  feasts  of  Christ  be  kept 
holy.  2.  That  the  liturgy  be  read  audibly,  and  not 
mumbled  over  inaudibly,  as  had  been  done  by  the 
massing  priests.  3.  That  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  bap- 
tism be  abolished  as  tending  to  superstition.    4.  That 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  xli 

kneeling  at  the  communion  be  left  to  the  discretion 
of  the  ordinary.  5.  That  ministers  may  use  only  a 
surplice,  or  other  decent  garment  in  public  worship, 
and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  6.  That 
organs  be  removed  from  churches. 

After  a  protracted  and  vigorous  debate,  these  arti- 
cles were  put  to  the  vote,  when  forty-three,  most  of 
them  exiles,  voted  that  the  petition  be  granted,  and 
only  thirty-five  against  it;  thus  leaving  a  clear  ma- 
jority of  eight  in  favour  of  a  further  reformation. 
When,  however,  proxies  were  called  for,  only  fifteen 
appeared  for,  while  twenty-four  appeared  against  the 
petition,  being,  on  the  whole,  fifty-eight  for,  and  fifty- 
nine  against,  leaving  a  majority  of  one  for  rejecting 
the  prayer  of  the  petition.* 

There  is  one  point  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of 
convocation,  an  extract  from  which  is  given,  both  by 
Burnet  and  Cardwell,  which  must  be  kept  in  view, 
to  enable  us  to  arrive  at  a  correct  conception  of  the 
sentiments  of  those  who  voted  against  the  above 
articles.  In  the  minute,  it  is  distinctly  mentioned, 
that  the  most  of  those  who  voted  against  granting  the 
prayer  of  the  petition,  did  so,  not  upon  the  merits,  but 
only  from  a  feeling  that  since  the  matters  in  debate 
had  been  imposed  by  public  authority  of  parliament 
and  the  queen,  it  was  not  competent  for  convocation 
to  take  up  the  subject  at  all.  Thus,  the  motion  for 
which  they  really  voted  was,  not  that  the  abuses 
complained  of  should  be  continued,  but  that  the  con- 
vocation had  no  power  to  alter  them.  A  second  sec- 
tion of  those  who  voted  against  the  articles,  was 
composed  of  those  who  had  held  cures  under  Ed- 
ward, and  had  a  hand  in  the  public  affairs  of  his 
reign,  and,  who  having  remained  in  England  during 
the  reign  of  Mary,  had.  not  seen  the  purer  churches 
on  the  continent,  and  regarded  the  reformation  of 
Edward  as  sufficiently  perfect.  A  third  section  of 
the  majority  consisted  of  those  who  held  benefices 
under  Mary,  and  who  were  of  course  Papists  in  their 

*  Strype's  An.  i.  500 — 6.  Burnet  iii.  454,  455.  Records,  Bk.  vi. 
No.  74.    Collier,  vi.  371—3.    Cardwell's  Hist,  of  Conf.  117—120. 


xlii 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


hearts,  and  would  therefore  vote  against  any  further 
reformation.  After  Ave  have  thus  analyzed  the  par- 
ties, and  weighed,  instead  of  numbering,  the  votes, 
and  when,  besides,  we  bear  in  mind  that  a  majority 
of  those  who  heard  the  reasoning  upon  the  matters 
in  dispute,  voted  for  further  reformation,  it  is  easy  to 
see  on  whose  side  truth  and  justice  lay. 

There  is,  besides,  another  point  to  which  Dr.  Card- 
well  has  called  our  attention,*  which  we  regard  of 
the  very  highest  importance,  and  to  which,  conse- 
quently, we  call  the  special  attention  of  our  readers. 
It  is  this,  that  although,  since  the  time  of  Burnet  and 
Strype,  it  has  been  always  said  that  the  number  of 
those  who  voted  for  the  Articles  was  fifty-eight,  yet, 
when  we  count  them  fairly,  they  are  fifty-nine,  pre- 
cisely the  number  who  voted  against  them.  Now,  if 
we  give  the  prolocutor  (the  same  as  our  moderator,) 
a  casting  vote,  Nowell,  dean  of  St. Paul's,  who  was 
prolocutor  of  that  convocation  and  voted  in  favour  of 
the  Articles,  and  would  of  course  give  his  casting 
vote  on  the  same  side,  this  would  give  a  majority  in 
favour  of  further  reformation. 

But  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that,  if 
thus  the  numbers  were  equal,  that  fact  should  not  be 
known  to  the  members  ?  We  should  be  glad  to  hear 
of  any  other  way  of  solving  the  difficulty,  but  the 
only  mode  of  doing  so  that  occurs  to  us,  is  to  suppose 
that  Parker  or  the  queen  had  recourse  to  the  artifice 
employed  by  Charles  I.  in  the  Scottish  parliament, 
viz.,  concealed  the  roll  and  declared  that  the  majority 
was  in  their  favour,  while  it  was  against  them,  as 
was  clearly  seen  when  the  original  came  into  the 
hands  of  the  public.  That  Parker  was  capable  of 
the  manoeuvre,  no  man  who  knows  his  character  can 
for  one  moment  question:  And  that  Elizabeth  would 
feel  at  the  least  as  little  scruple  in  doing  so  as  Charles 
I.,  he  that  doubts  may  consult  the  note  at  the  foot  of 
the  page.t 

*  Vt  supra,  p.  120,  note. 

t  In  155(J  a  bill  passed  through  parliament  authorizing  the  queen 
to  restore  to  their  former  cures,  such  of  the  returned  exiles  as  had 
been  unlawfully  deprived  ;  that  is,  by  Mary  on  account  of  their  Protes- 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


xliii 


From  this  induction  of  facts  it  is  most  abundantly 
manifest  that  the  prelates  and  the  great  majority  of 
the  leading  members  of  the  lower  house  of  convoca- 
tion, were  decidedly  in  favour  of  a  further  reforma- 
tion. It  only  further  remains  to  finish  this  branch  of 
our  argument,  that  we  show  the  feelings  of  the  lead- 
ing statesmen  of  the  kingdom.  This  may  be  done 
in  the  following  passage  from  one  who  is  certainly  a 
competent  enough  witness  so  far  as  knowledge  is  con- 
cerned, and  whom  no  one  will  accuse  of  any  partiali- 
ty towards  the  Puritans.  After  stating  that  several  of 
the  bishops  were  in  favour  of  the  Puritans,  Hallam* 
goes  on  to  say, 

"They,"  the  Puritans,  "had  still  more  effectual 

tantism.  "  Yet,"  says  Strypc,  (Annals  i.  99,)  "I  do  not  find  it  was 
enacted  and  passed  into  law."  It  must  therefore  have  been  clandes- 
tinely suppressed  by  Elizabeth,  who  both  hated  and  feared  the  Pro- 
testantism of  the  exiles.  She  acted  very  much  in  the  same  way  in 
regard  to  the  re-enacting  of  Edward's  statute  in  favour  of  clerical 
marriages,  (Ibid.  118.)  The  convocation  of  1575,  among  other  arti- 
cles of  reformation,  breathing  the  spirit  of  Giindal  who  was  just  then 
raised  (o  the  primacy,  passed  the  following,  that  none  but  ministers 
lawfully  ordained  should  baptize,  and  that  it  should  be  lawful  to 
marry  at  any  period  of  the  year :  but  Elizabeth  cancelled  both. 
(Strypc's  Grindal,  2!)0 — 1.)  We  need  not,  however,  multiply  in- 
stances in  which  Elizabeth  exercised  this  power,  as  it  is  admitted 
on  all  hands  that  she  both  claimed  and  exercised  it.  (Cardwell's 
Documentary  Annals,  ii.  171 — 2,  note.)  The  case  most  in  point  is 
the  following,  along  with  the  liberty  we  have  already  seen  she  took 
with  the  first  draft  of  the  liturgy.  Our  readers  are  aware  of  the 
controversy  as  to  how  the  celebrated  clause,  ("the  Church  hath 
power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies 
of  faith,")  crept  into  the  Twentieth  Article  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, when  it  occurs  neither  in  the  first  printed  edition  of  the  Arti- 
cles, nor  in  the  draft  of  them  which  was  passed  by  convocation,  and 
which  is  still  in  existence,  with  the  autograph  signatures  of  the  mem- 
bers. It  is  now  the  universal  belief  that  Elizabeth  inserted  this 
clause,  as  well  as  cancelled  the  whole  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Article, 
whose  title  sufficiently  indicates  its  contents,  viz.  "the  ungodly 
ftmpii)  do  not  cat  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of  the  sup- 
per," a  dogma  which  Elizabeth,  who  believed  in  transubstantiation, 
could  not  admit.  (See  Lamb's  Historfcal  and  Critical  Essay  on  the 
thirty-nine  Articles,  p.  35,  &c.  Cardwell's  Hist,  of  Conf.  21,22, 
note.  Cardwell's  Synodalia,  i.  38,  39,  note.  Cardwell's  Doc.  An.  ii. 
171,  note.  Bishop  Short's  Sketch,  Slc,  327,  note.)  The  person  who 
could  thus  act  was  certainly  capable  of  falsifying  the  votes  of  convo- 
cation, 1562. 

*  Constitutional  Hist,  of  England,  i.  250,  257. 


xllV  THE  ANGLIC  AX  REFORMATION. 


support  in  the  Queen's  council.  The  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter, who  possessed  more  power  than  any  one,  to  sway 
her  wavering  and  capricious  temper,  the  Earls  of  Bed- 
ford, Huntington,  and  Warwick,  regarded  as  the 
steadiest  Protestants  among  the  aristocracy,  the  wise 
and  grave  Lord  Keeper  Bacon,  the  sagacious  Wals- 
ingham,  the  experienced  Sadler,  the  zealous  Knollys, 
considered  these  objects  of  Parker's  severity  (the 
Puritans)  either  as  demanding  a  purer  worship  than 
had  been  established  in  the  Church,  or  at  least  as 
worthy,  by  their  virtues,  of  more  indulgent  treatment. 
Cecil  himself,  though  on  intimate  terms  with  the  arch- 
bishop, and  concurring  generally  in  his  measures, 
was  not  far  removed  from  the  latter  way  of  thinking, 
if  his  natural  caution  and  extreme  dread,  at  this  junc- 
ture, of  losing  the  Queen's  favour,  had  permitted 
him  more  unequivocally  to  express  it." 

Mr.  Hallam  by  no  means  does  full  justice  to  the 
sentiments  of  Cecil.  No  one  can  read  his  correspon- 
dence with  the  Puritans,  and  his  private  letters  to  the 
prelates,  without  being  satisfied  that  that  great  states- 
man fully  concurred  in  all  the  general  principles  of 
the  former. 

In  regard  again  to 

"  The  upper  ranks  among  the  laity,  setting  aside 
courtiers  and  such  as  took  little  interest  in  the  dis- 
putes," these,  says  Mr.  Hallam,  "  were  chiefly  divided 
between  those  attached  to  the  ancient  Church,  and 
those  who  wished  for  further  reformation  in  the  new. 
I  conceive  the  Church  of  England  party,  that  is,  the 
party  adverse  to  any  species  of  ecclesiastical  change, 
to  have  been  the  least  numerous  of  the  three,  (that  is, 
i  Puritan,  Popish,  and  Anglican,)  during  this  reign, 
still  excepting,  as  I  have  said,  the  neutrals  who  com- 
monly make  a  numerical  majority,  and  are  counted 
along  with  the  dominant  religion.  .  .  .  The 
Puritans,  or  at  least,  those  who  rather  favoured  them, 
had  a  majority  among  the  Protestant  gentry  in  the 
Queen's  days.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  (and  is  quite 
manifest)  that  they  predominated  in  the  House  of 
Commons.    But  that  house  was  (then)  composed,  as 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  Xlv 


it  has  ever  been,  of  the  principal  landed  proprietors, 
and  as  much  represented  the  general  wish  of  the  com- 
munity when  it  demanded  a  further  reform  in  reli- 
gious matters,  as  on  any  other  subjects.  One  would 
imagine  by  the  manner  in  which  some  (that  is  unscru- 
pulous high  churchmen)  express  themselves,  that  the 
discontented  were  a  small  fraction,  who,  by  some  un- 
accountable means,  in  despite  of  the  government  and 
the  nation,  formed  a  majority  of  all  the  parliaments 
under  Elizabeth  and  her  two  successors." 

Who  now  then  constituted  the  real  Church  of  Eng- 
land party?  Elizabeth  chiefly — a  host  in  herself — 
aided  by  all  the  Popish,  immoral  and  irreligious  per- 
sons in  the  kingdom,  whether  lay  or  clerical. 

Lest  our  readers  should  fancy  that  we  have  been 
all  this  time  describing  merely  the  transition  state  of 
the  Church  of  England  before  she  became  fully  or- 
ganized as  she  is  now  established, — a  state  which  is 
interesting  in  the  present  day  only  as  it  serves  to  in- 
dicate to  a  philosophic  inquirer,  in  the  same  manner 
as  a  fossil  does  to  a  comparative  anatomist  the  by- 
gone condition  of  some  primeval  state  of  society; — in 
order  to  prevent  such  a  mistake,  we  beg  leave  to  re- 
mind our  readers  that  we  are  describing  the  present 
constitution  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  estab- 
lished. The  acts  of  supremacy  and  uniformity  are 
still  in  operation,  and  the  Anglican  Church,  in  all  the 
principles  on  which  it  was  based,  and  in  all  points 
of  practical  importance,  continues  as  it  stood  at  the 
death  of  Elizabeth.  Nay,  we  hesitate  not  to  assert, 
that  it  is  now  nearer  to  the  Church  of  Rome  than  it 
was  then.  Of  all  the  alterations  demanded  by  the 
Puritans,  the  only  one  of  any  practical  moment  was 
made  at  the  Hampton  court  conference,  when  the 
"royal  theologian,"  certainly  not  to  please  the  Puri- 
tans, forbade  any  but  ministers  to  administer  bap- 
tism. But  this  improvement  is  more  than  counter- 
balanced by  the  anti-protestant  alterations  made  upon 
the  prayer-book  by  the  convocation  of  1661,  and  that 
for  the  express  purpose  of  rendering  it  for  ever  im- 
possible for  the  Presbyterians  to  think  of  entering  the 


« 


Xlvi  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

Church  of  England.  Of  these  alterations,  one  may 
be  mentioned  as  showing  the  animus  of  that  convo- 
cation, next  to  that  of  16S9,  the  most  infamous,  not 
even  excepting  that  of  1640,  that  ever  assembled  in 
England.  Down  to  that  period  there  was  compara- 
tively but  little  of  the  apocrypha  prescribed  in  the 
calendar,  and  even  that  little,  by  an  "admonition" 
prefixed  to  the  Second  Book  of  Homilies  in  1564,  the 
olficiating  clergyman  was  not  only  authorized  to  omit 
and  substitute  in  its  place'  some  more  suitable  portion 
of  canonical  Scripture,  but  he  was  recommended  to 
do  so.*  The  convocation  of  1661,  however,  and  the 
act  of  uniformity  based  upon  their  proceedings,  not 
only  introduced  other  portions  of  the  apQcrypha  into 
the  daily  lessons,  but  rendered  it  imperative  upon 
every  clergyman  to  read  them.t  We  have  paid  some 
little  attention  to  the  subject,  and  have  no  fear  that 
we  shall  be  contradicted  by  any  competent  judge, 
when  we  affirm  that  the  constitution  and  formularies 
of  the  Church  of  England  are  now  less  Protestant  than 
they  were  left  by  Parker,  Whitgift,  and  Elizabeth. 
The  progress  of  enlightened  opinions,  and  the  in- 
fluence of  a  close  contact  with  the  evangelism  of  the 
Anglicamnon-conformists,  and  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, have,  it  must  not  be  concealed,  to  some  extent, 
practically  modified  the  constitutional  influence  of  the 
Anglican  formularies.  Put  how  slight,  the  influence 
of  these  disturbing  causes  upon  the  minds  of  Anglican 
churchmen  are,  in  comparison  with  the  intense  mo- 
mentum of  their  own  constitution,  may  be  estimated 
by  any  man  who  will  study  the  history  of  Laud  and 
his  times,  the  history  of  the  Restoration,  of  the  Revo- 
lution, and  in  our  own  times,  ponder  over  the  unpar- 
alelled  rapidity  with  which  Puseyism  has  circulated, 
the  wide  spread  ramification,  and  the  all  but  universal 
reception  to  which  it  has  already  attained ;  a  circum- 
stance that  must  be  unaccountable  to  those  who  are 

*  Cardwcll's  Hist,  of  Conf.  21,  22,  note. 

t  Cardwcll's  Hist,  of  Conf.  378 — 392,  where  the  various  altera- 
tions then  made  in  the  liturgy  may  be  read  at  large,  or  the  "  Syno- 
dalia"  by  the  same  writer,  ii.  633 — 686,  where  copious  extracts  from 
the  original  minute  may  be  seen. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  xlvii 


unacquainted  with  the  constitution  and  history  of  the 
Church  of  England,  but  of  the  easiest  possible  solu- 
tion to  those  who  are.  Challenging  contradiction,  we 
once  more  affirm  that,  without  altering  one  single 
canon,  injunction,  or  rubric,  or  displacing  one  clause 
in  her  constitution,  nay,  only  honestly  and  constitu- 
tionally carrying  them  out  to  their  legitimate  conse- 
quences and  practical  results,  the  Church  of  England 
might  be  made  so  to  approximate  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  it  might  matter  little  to  a  real  Bible  Pro- 
testant into  which  of  them  he  might  be  required,  under 
pain  of  persecution,  to  incorporate  himself.  Had  the 
Puseyite  leaders,  instead  of  moving  forward  as  they 
have  avowedly  done  to  take  their  stand  upon  the 
principles  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  contented  them- 
selves with  working  out  the  constitutional  though 
partially  dormant  principles  of  the  Church  of  England, 
their  success  would  be  all  but  certain.  If  they  are 
ever  defeated,  it  must  be  through  the  consequences 
to  which  this  false  movement  must  inevitably  lead. 
The  once  all  dominant  cry,  "  No  popery,"  is  not  yet 
so  powerless,  despite  of  all  that  has  happened,  but 
that  many  men  who  would  blindly  embrace  whatever 
was  proved  to  be  bona  fide  Church-of-Englandism, 
will  be  shocked  when  required  openly  to  embrace 
undisguised  Romanism. 

We  have  found,  then,  that  without  a  single  excep- 
tion, all  the  first  prelates  of  Elizabeth  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  England;  that 
the  most  of  them  deliberated  long  and  painfully  be- 
fore they  could  be  induced  to  accept  preferments 
within  her  pale ;  and  that  the  motive  which  principally 
induced  them  to  conform  was  a  hope  that  they  might 
thus  be  able  to  complete  the  Reformation.*  There 

*  So  little  was  Cranmcr  satisfied  with  the  state  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  his  day,  that  he  "  had  drawn  up  a  book  of  prayers  an 
hundred  times  more  perfect  than  that  which  was  then  in  being," 
(Edward's  second  liturgy,)  and  if  the  lung  had  been  spared  a  little 
longer,  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  it  would  have  been  introduced  along 
with  many  other  alterations.  See  Dr.  Cardwcll's  Two  Praver- 
Books,  &c.  Compared,  preface,  34-6.  And  yet  the  present  prayer- 
book,  as  we  have  seen,  is  more  Popish  than  that  which  Cranmer 
would  reform. 


xlviii 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


were  others,  however,  still  more  enlightened,  who  saw 
further  into  the  intentions  of  Elizabeth,  and  who 
would  not  accept  of  any  benefice  in  the  Anglican 
Church  until  they  saw  her  further  reformed.  Among 
these,  not  to  speak  of  those  who  are  known  as  avowed 
Puritans,  may  be  mentioned  Bishop  Coverdale,*  and 
Fox  the  martyrologist.  Parker  used  every  means 
to  induce  Fox  to  conform,  in  order  that  the  great 
influence  of  his  name  might  prevail  upon  others  to 
follow  his  example.  "But  the  old  man,  producing 
the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  'To  this,'  saith  he,  'I 
will  subscribe.'  But  when  a  subscription  to  the 
canons  was  required  of  him,  he  refused,  saying,  '  I 
have  nothing  in  the  Church  save  a  prebend  at  Salis- 
bury, and  much  good  may  it  do  you  if  you  will  take 
it  away.'  "t  The  best  part  of  the  inferior  clergy  again, 
who  conformed,  did  so  in  the  hope  that  the  prelates 
whom  they  knew  to  be  of  their  own  sentiments  would, 
now  that  they  were  elevated  to  places  of  power,  be 
able  to  accomplish  the  further  reformation  which  all  so 
very  ardently  desired.  Of  all  the  true  Protestants,  not 
one  would  have  consented  to  accept  a  preferment  in 
the  Anglican  Church,  if  he  had  been  at  the  outset 
aware  that  no  further  reformation  was  to  be  accom- 
plished. What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  continued  to 
retain  them  in  her  communion,  when  they  found  that 
they  could  not  reform  that  Church?  It  is  a  delicate 
question,  but  we  have  no  hesitation  in  rendering  an 
answer. 

The  deteriorating  influence  of  high  stations  of 
honour,  power,  and  wealth,  has  been  rendered  pro- 
verbial by  the  experience  of  mankind;  but  never  was 
it  more  disastrously  manifested  than  by  Elizabeth's 
first  bishops.^  Not  one  of  them  had  escaped  the  cor- 

*  Strype's  Ann.  ii.  43;  Life  of  Parker,  i.  295,  297. 
t  Fuller's  Ch.  Hist,  ii  475. 

t  Cecil,  writing  to  Whitgift  about  filling  up  some  bishoprics  then 
vacant,  says,  "  he  saw  such  worldliness  in  many  that  were  otherwise 
affected  before  they  came  to  cathedral  churches,  that  he  feared  the 
places  altered  the  men."  Strype's  Whitgift,  i.  338.  He  makes 
very  much  the  same  complaint  to  Grindal  in  1575.  Strype's  Grin- 
dal,281. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  xlix 


rupting  influence  of  their  stations.*  Having  so  far 
overcome  the  scruples  they  at  first  entertained  against 
conformity,  not  it  must  be  feared  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  their  convictions,  it  was  but  natural  that  they 
should  entertain  not  the  most  kindly  feelings  towards 
those  whose  consistency  of  conduct  not  only  would 
degrade  them  in  their  own  eyes,  but  open  up  afresh 
the  wounds  yet  raw  in  their  consciences.  The  apos- 
tate is  ever  the  most  vindictive  persecutor  of  his  for- 
mer brethren.  Besides,  no  one  can  fail  to  have 
noticed  that  when  a  man  has  irretrievably  committed 
himself  to  a  cause  which  he  formerly  opposed,  he  is 
compelled,  by  the  necessity  of  his  position,  to  become 
more  stringent  and  inflexible  in  his  proceedings  than 
the  man  who  is  now  pursuing  only  the  course  on 
which  he  first  embarked.  Bishop  Short,  in  a  passage 
already  quoted,  has  candidly  admitted,  that  "when 
Parker  and  the  other  bishops  had  begun  to  execute 
the  laws  against  non-conformists,  they  must  have  been 
more  than  men  if  they  could  divest  their  own  minds 
of  that  personality  which  every  one  must  feel  when 
engaged  in  a  controversy  in  which  the  question  really 
is,  whether  he  shall  be  able  to  succeed  in  carrying  his 
plans  into  execution."  We  could  assign  other  reasons 
for  the  conduct  of  Elizabeth's  first  bishops,  but  we 
entertain  too  high  a  regard  for  what  they  had  been, 
to  take  any  pleasure  in  exposing  their  faults. 

What  now  would  these  great  and  good  men  do 
were  they,  with  their  avowed  principles,  when  they 
returned  from  exile,  to  appear  in  our  day?  Would 
they  praise  the  Church  of  England  as  "our  primitive 
and  apostolic  Church, — the  bulwark  of  the  Reforma- 
tion,— the  safeguard  of  Protestantism,  and  the  glory 
of  Christendom?"  as  some  who  boast  of  being  their 
successors  continue  to  do.  Would  they  even  accept 
cures  in  the  Church  of  England,  knowing,  as  all 
her  ministers  now  do,  that  no  further  reformation  is 
so  much  as  to  be  mooted, — nay,  that  it  must  not  be 

*  See  a  painful  letter  on  this  subject  from  Sampson  to  Grindal. 
Strype's  Parker,  ii.  376,  377. 

D 


1 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


so  much  as  acknowledged  that  it  is  required?  He 
knows  neither  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, nor  the  character  of  the  reformers,  who  hesitates 
for  one  moment  to  answer,  and  with  the  most  marked 
emphasis,  they  xoould  not. 

And  what  a  lesson  of  solemn  warning  do  the  con- 
sequences of  a  compromise  of  principles,  as  seen  in 
the  subsequent  history  of  the  Church  of  England, 
read  to  our  own  ministers  in  their  present  arduous 
struggle.  The  second  set  of  bishops  appointed  by 
Elizabeth  were,  without  a  single  exception,  men  of 
more  Erastian  sentiments,  of  more  lax  theology,  of 
more  Popish  tendencies,  than  their  predecessors.  The 
first  prelates  had  been  trained  amid  the  advancing 
reformation  of  Edward,  and  among  the  Presbyterians 
on  the  continent,  and  had  imbibed  the  sentiments  of 
their  associates.  But  their  successors  had  been  trained 
in  the  Church  of  England,  and  bore  the  impress  of 
her  character.  And  such  would  also  be  the  case  in 
our  own  Church,  were  our  ministers,  by  an  unhal- 
lowed submission,  to  yield  to  the  antichristian  invasion 
of  the  Church's  rights  and  liberties  now  attempted. 
To  these  our  ministers,  God  has  committed  a  glorious 
cause.  May  they  be  found  worthy  to  maintain  it. 
Their  deeds  are  before  men  and  angels.  Future  his- 
torians shall  record  their  acts,  and  inscribe  their  names 
in  the  glorious  muster-roll  of  martyrs  and  confessors, 
or  denounce  them  to  eternal  infamy.  We  shall  watch 
their  proceedings  with  an  interest  which  the  shock  of 
armed  empires  would  not  excite  in  our  bosoms,  and, 
by  God's  grace,  shall  lend  our  aid  to  make  known  to 
posterity  how  they  have  fought  the  good  fight  and 
kept  the  faith.  The  arena  of  their  struggle  may  ap- 
pear obscure  and  contracted.  But  itjj  is  the  Ther- 
mopylae of  Christendom.  On  them,  and  on  their 
success,  under  God,  it  depends,  whether  worse  than 
Asiatic  barbarism  and  despotism  are  to  overwhelm 
Europe,  or  light,  and  life,  and  liberty,  to  become  the 
birthright  of  the  nations.  May  the  Captain  of  the 
host  of  Israel  ever  march  forward  at  their  head. 
May  the  blue  banner  of  the  covenant,  unstained  by 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


Li 


one  blot,  be  victorious  in  their  hands,  as  it  was  of 
yore.  May  the  sword  of  the  Lord,  and  of  Gideon, 
now  unsheathed,  never  return  to  its  scabbard,  until  the 
Church  of  Scotland  shall  have  vindicated  her  rights, 
and  established  her  liberties  on  an  immovable  basis. 
No  surrender !  No  compromise !  Better  the  mountain 
side,  like  our  fathers,  and  freedom  of  communion  with 
our  God,  than  an  Erastian  establishment,  which  would 
no  longer  be  a  Church, — than  a  sepulchral  temple, 
from  which  the  living  God  had  fled. 

We  return  from  this  digression,  (for  which  we  make 
no  apology, — we  would  despise  the  man  that  would 
require  it,)  to  relate  the  internal  condition  of  the 
Church  of  England  at  and  after  the  accession  of 
Elizabeth. 

One  fact  will  prove,  to  every  man  who  regards 
"  Christ  crucified  as  the  power  of  God  and  the  wis- 
dom of  God  unto  salvation,"  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  at  this  time  in  the  most  wretched  condition 
imaginable,  both  moral  and  spiritual.  Of  nine  thou- 
sand four  hundred  clergymen,  of  all  grades,  then  bene- 
ficed in  that  Church,  and  all,  of  course,  Papists,  being 
the  incumbents  of  Mary's  reign,  only  one  hundred 
and  ninety-two,  of  whom  only  eighty  were  parochial, 
resigned  their  livings;  the  rest,  as  much  Papists  as 
ever,  and  now,  in  addition,  unblushing  hypocrites, 
who  subscribed  what  they  did  not  believe,  and  sub- 
mitted to  what  they  could  not  approve,  remained  in 
their  cures,  and  became  the  ministers  of  the  Protes- 
tant (?)  Church  of  England.*  We  should  do  these 
nine  thousand  two  hundred  and  eight  who  remained 
in  their  cures,  an  honour  to  which  they  have  no  claim, 
were  we  to  compare  them  to  the  most  ignorant,  scan- 
dalous, and  profligate  priesthood  at  present  in  Europe. 
Many  of  them  did  not  understand  the  offices  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  "  mumble"  at  the  altar.  Some 

*  The  following  is  Strype's  list  of  those  who  resigned,— viz.,  14 
bishops,  18  deans,  14  archdeacons,  15  heads  of  colleges,  50  pre- 
bendaries, 80  rectors,  6  abbots,  priors,  and  abbesses,  in  all  192. 
Annals,  i.  106.  Burnet,  ii.  620,  makes  them  only  189.  Collier,  vi. 
p.  252,  following,  as  is  his  wont,  Popish  authorities,  when  they  can 
add  credit  to  their  own  Church,  makes  them  about  250. 


lii 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


of  them  could  not  sign  their  names,  or  even  read  the 
English  liturgy.  Yet  into  the  hands  of  these  men 
did  Elizabeth  and  her  prelates  commit  the  immortal 
souls  of  the  people  of  England.  And  if  at  any  time 
the  people,  shocked  at  the  immoralities  and  Papistry 
of  their  parish  priest,  attended  ordinances  under  some 
more  Protestant  minister  in  the  neighbourhood,  they 
were  compelled,  by  fines  and  imprisonment,  to  return 
to  their  own  parish  church. 

When,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  several  of  these 
papistico-protestant  priests  had  died,  and  others  of 
them  had  fled  out  of  the  kingdom,  there  were  no 
properly  qualified  ministers  to  replace  them.  Patrons 
sold  the  benefices  to  laymen,  retaining  the  best  part 
of  the  fruits  in  their  own  hands.  Thus  the  parishes 
remained  vacant.  Strype,  speaking  of  the  state  of 
the  diocese  of  Bangor  in  1565,  says,  "As  for  Bangor, 
that  diocese  was  much  out  of  order,  there  being  no 
preaching  used."  And  two  years  afterwards  the 
bishop  wrote  to  Parker,  that  "  he  had  but  two  preach- 
ers in  his  whole  diocese,"  the  livings  being  in  the 
hands  of  laymen.*  In  1562  Parkhurst  of  Norwich 
wrote  Parker,  in  answer  to  the  inquiries  of  the  privy 
council,  that  in  his  diocese  there  were  434  parish 
churches  vacant,  and  that  many  chapels  of  ease  had 
fallen  into  ruins.t  Cox  of  Ely,  in  1560,  wrote  the 
archbishop,  that  in  his  diocese  there  were  150  cures 
of  all  sorts,  of  which  only  "52  were  duly  served," — 
many  of  them,  of  course,  only  by  readers, — 34  were 
vacant,  13  had  neither  rector  nor  vicar,  and  57  were 
possessed  by  non-residents.  "So  pitiable  and  to  be 
lamented,"  exclaims  Cox,  "is  the  face  of  this  diocese: 
and  if,  in  other  places,  it  be  so  too,"  (and  so  it  was,) 
'•most  miserable  indeed  is  the  condition  of  the  Church 
of  England.":]:  We  never  can  think  of  the  condition 
of  England, — when  thus  darkness  covered  the  earth, 
and  thick  darkness  the  people,  and  when,  emphati- 
cally, the  blind  led  the  blind, — without  admiring  grati- 

*  Strype's  Parker,  i.  404,  500.      t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  143,  144. 
t  Strype's  An.  i.  539,  540. 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


liii 


tude  to  that  God  who  did  not  altogether  remove  his 
candlestick,  and  leave  the  whole  nation  to  perish, 
through  the  crimes  of  their  rulers,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical. 

In  order  to  keep  the  churches  open,  and  afford  even 
the  semblance  of  public  worship  to  the  people,  the 
prelates  were  compelled  to  license,  as  readers,  a  set 
of  illiterate  mechanics,  who  were  able  to  read  through 
the  prayers  without  spelling  the  hard  words.*  The 
people,  however,  could  not  endure  these  immoral, 
base-born,  illiterate  readers;  and  then,  as  if  the  mere 
act  of  ordination  could  confer  upon  them  all  the  re- 
quisite qualifications,  "not  a  few  mechanics,  altogether 
as  unlearned  as  the  most  objectionable  of  those  eject- 
ed, were  preferred  to  dignities  and  livings."!"  The 
scheme,  however  politic,  failed,  through  the  inde- 
corous manners,  and  the  immoral  lives,  and  the  gross 
ignorance,  of  these  upstart  priests. £  And  then  an 
order  was  issued  to  the  bishop  of  London  to  ordain 
no  more  mechanics,  because  of  the  scandals  they  had 
brought  upon  religion ;§  but  the  necessity  of  the  case 
compelled  the  provincial  bishops  still  to  employ  lay 
readers,  and  ordain  mechanics  to  read  the  prayers. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  England  when  Parker, 
partly  goaded  on  by  the  queen,  and  partly  by  his  own 
sullen  despotism,  commenced  a  course  of  persecutions, 
suspensions,  and  silencing  against  the  Puritans,  who 
were  the  only  preachers  in  the  kingdom.  In  January 
1564,  eight  were  suspended  in  the  diocese  of  London. 
It  was  hoped  that  this  example  would  overawe  the 
rest,  and  three  months  afterwards  the  London  clergy 
were  summoned  again  to  subscribe  to  the  canons,  and 
conform  to  all  the  usages  of  the  Church  of  England ; 
but  thirty  refused,  and  were,  of  course,  suspended. || 
A  respite  of  eight  months  was  given  to  the  rest;  and 
then  in  January  165G  they  were  cited,  and  37  having 
refused  to  subscribe,  were  suspended.!!  These,  as  we 

*  Strype's  An.  i.  202,  203.  ||  Strype's  Grindal,  144,  146. 

+  Collier,  vi.  264.  IT  Ibid.  154. 

t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  180. 

§  Strype's  Grindal,  60.    Collier,  vi.  313. 


liv 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


may  well  believe,  were,  even  in  the  estimation  of 
Parker  himself,  and,  indeed,  as  he  acknowledged,  the 
best  men  and  the  ablest  preachers  in  the  diocese.* 
The  insults  offered,  and  the  cruelties  inflicted  upon 
these  men,  would,  had  we  space  to  detail  them,  in- 
tensate  the  indignation  of  our  readers  against  their 
ruthless  persecutors. 

The  silencing  of  such  preachers,  and  the  consequent 
desolation  in  the  Church  excited  the  attention  of  the 
nation.  All  men  who  had  any  regard  for  the  ordi- 
nances of  God,  were  shocked  at  the  proceedings  of 
the  primate,  and  bitter  complaints  were  made  of  him 
to  the  privy  council.  Elizabeth  herself  ordered  Cecil 
to  write  him  on  the  subject.  Parker  sullenly  replied, 
that  this  was  nothing  more  than  he  had  foreseen  from 
the  first,  and  that  when  the  queen  had  ordered  him  to 
press  uniformity,  "he  had  told  her,  that  these  precise 
folks  would  offer  their  goods,  and  even  their  bodies  to 
prison,  rather  than  they  would  relent."!  And  yet 
Parker,  who  could  anticipate  their  conduct,  could 
neither  appreciate  their  conscientiousness,  nor  respect 
their  firmness. 

The  persecutions  commenced  in  London  soon  spread 
over  the  whole  kingdom.  We  have  already  seen  the 
most  destitute  condition  of  the  diocese  of  Norwich,  in 
which  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  parish  churches 
were  vacant,  and  many  chapels  of  ease  fallen  into 
ruins.  Will  it  be  credited,  that  in  these  circumstances 
thirty-six  ministers,  almost  the  whole  preaching  min- 
isters in  the  diocese,  were,  in  one  day,  suspended,  for 
refusing  subscription  to  the  anti-christian  impositions 
of  the  prelates?|  This  is  but  a  specimen  of  what  took 
place  throughout  the  kingdom.  And  when  the  peo- 
ple, having  no  pastor  to  teach  them,  met  together  to 
read  the  Scriptures,  forthwith  a  thundering  edict  came 
down  from  the  primate,  threatening  them  with  fines 
and  imprisonment  if  they  dared  to  pray  together  or 
read  the  word  of  God.  In  a  certain  small  village  a 
revival  took  place,  under  the  ministrations  of  a  reader, 

*  Strypc's  Parker,  i.  429.      tStrype's  Parker,  i.  448.      J  Ibid.  ii.  341. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


so  illiterate  that  he  could  not  sign  his  own  name.  As 
always  happens  under  such  circumstances,  the  people 
formed  fellowship  meetings.  No  sooner  was  this  known 
than  they  were  summoned  to  answer  for  such  violations 
of  canonical  order.  In  a  simple  memorial,  which  would 
melt  a  heart  of  stone,  these  pious  peasants  stated  to  the 
inquisitors,  that  they  only  met  together  in  the  evenings, 
after  the  work  of  the  day  was  over,  to  devote  the  time 
they  formerly  misspent  in  drinking  and  sin,  to  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  and  the  reading  of  his  word.  Their  judges 
were  deaf  to  their  petitions  and  representations,  and 
forbade  them  absolutely  to  meet  any  longer  for  such 
purposes,  leaving  it  to  be  inferred,  by  no  far-fetched 
deductions,  that  a  man  might  violate  the  laws  of  God, 
without  impunity;  but  wo  be  unto  him  that  should 
break  the  injunctions  of  the  prelates.* 

And  what  was  the  crime  for  which  these  Puritans 
were  suspended,  sequestered,  fined,  imprisoned,  and 
some  of  them  put  to  death?  Simply  because  they 
would  not  acknowledge  that  man,  whether  prelate, 
primate,  or  prince,  has  authority  to  alter  the  constitu- 
tion of  God's  church,  to  prescribe  rites  and  modes  of 
"  will-worship,"  and  administration  of  sacraments, 
different  from  what  He  had  appointed  in  his  word. 
Nothing  but  gross  ignorance,  or  grosser  dishonesty, 
will  lead  any  man  to  say,  as  has  been  said,  and  con- 
tinues to  be  said  down  to  this  day,  and  that  not  by 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  alone,  but  by 
others  of  whom  better  things  might  be  expected,!"  that 
the  Puritans  refused  to  remain  in  their  ministry  merely 
because  of  the  imposition  of  "  square  caps,  copes,  and 
surplices;"  or  even,  which  are  of  higher  moment, 
because  of  the  "  cross  in  baptism,"  and  kneeling  at 
the  communion;  these  things  being  considered  simply 
in  themselves.  What  they  condemned  and  resisted  was 
the  principle,  that  man  has  authority  to  alter  the 
economy  of  God's  house.  "  Considering,  therefore," 
said  the  ministers  of  London  in  1565,  in  a  defence 

*  Strype's  Parker,  381-5. 

t  See  Orme's  Life  of  Owen,  commented  on  by  Dr.  McCrie  in  his 
Miscellaneous  Works,  pp.  465,  466. 


Ivi 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


they  published  of  their  own  conduct,  "  considering, 
therefore,  that  at  this  time,  by  admitting  the  out- 
ward apparel,  and  ministering  garments  of  the  Pope's 
church,  not  only  the  Christian  liberty  should  be  mani- 
festly infringed,  but  the  whole  religion  of  Christ  would 
be  brought  to  be  esteemed  no  other  thing  than  the 
pleasure  of  princes,  they  (the  London  ministers) 
thought  it  their  duty,  being  ministers  of  God's  word 
and  sacraments,  utterly  to  refuse"  to  submit  to  the 
required  impositions.  But  if  the  prelates  were  deter- 
mined to  proceed  in  their  infatuated  career,  then  these 
enlightened  servants  of  God  professed  their  willing- 
ness "  to  submit  themselves  to  any  punishment  the 
laws  did  appoint,  that  so  they  might  teach  by  their 
example  true  obedience  both  to  God  and  man,  and 
yet  to  keep  the  Christian  liberty  sound,  and  show  the 
Christian  religion  to  be  such,  that  no  prince  or  poten- 
tate might  alter  the  same."* 

When  Sampson  and  Humphreys  were  required  to 
subscribe  and  submit  to  the  prescribed  impositions, 
they  refused  upon  the  following,  among  other  ac- 
counts:— "  If,"  they  said,  "  we  should  grant  to  wear 
priests'  apparel,  then  it  might  and  would  be  required 
at  our  hands  to  have  shaven  crowns,  and  to  receive 
more  Papistical  abuses.  Therefore  it  is  best,  at  the 
first,  not  to  wear  priests'  apparel. "t  It  was  the  prin- 
ciple involved  in  these  impositions  they  opposed. 
And  well  are  we  assured,  that  had  it  not  been  for  the 
resistance  to  the  first  attempts  to  enslave  the  con- 
science, which  were  made  by  these  glorious  confessors 
and  martyrs,  other  and  still  more  hateful  abuses  of 
Popery  would  have  been  perpetuated  in  the  Angli- 
can church.  Only  grant  the  principle,  that  man  has 
the  right  to  make  such  impositions,  and  where  is  the 
application  of  the  principle  to  find  its  limit? 

And  as  to  the  stale  objection,  that  these  men  relin- 
quished their  ministry  for  frivolous  rites  and  habits, 
it  is  enough  to  reply,  that  the  objection  is  not  founded 
upon  truth. 


*  Apud  Strype's  An.  ii.  166,  167.        t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  340. 


THE   ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


Ivii 


"  As  touching  that  point,"  (the  habits,)  says  Cart- 
wright,  "  whether  the  minister  should  wear  it,  although 
it  be  inconvenient;  the  truth  is,  that  I  dare  not  be  au- 
thor to  any  to  forsake  his  pastoral  charge  for  the  in- 
convenience thereof,  considering  that  this  charge  (the 
ministry)  being  an  absolute  commandment  of  the 
Lord,  ought  not  to  be  laid  aside  for  a  simple  incon- 
venience or  uncomeliness  of  a  thing  which,  in  its  own 
nature,  is  indifferent.  .  .  .  When  it  is  laid  in  the 
scales  with  the  preaching  of  the  word  of  God,  which 
is  so  necessary  to  him  who  is  called  thereunto,  that  a 
Avoe  hangeth  on  his  head  if  he  do  not  preach  it;  it  is 
of  less  importance  than  for  the  refusal  of  it  we  should 
let  go  so  necessary  a  duty."* 

We  might  challenge  their  accusers,  whether  Brown- 
ist  or  Prelatist,  to  show  us  sentiments  more  enlight- 
ened or  more  consistently  maintained,  since  the  world 
began. 

We  have  said  so  much  upon  this  point,  because  we 
do  not  mean  at  present  to  enter  upon  a  formal  defence 
of  the  Puritans,  although  we  may,  perchance,  do  so 
elsewhere,  and  at  greater  length,  hereafter,  if  God 
spare  us.  We  have  done  this  also  to  prevent  our 
readers  from  being  carried  away  by  the  oft-repeated 
libels  of  pert  pretenders  to  liberality,  or  of  servile  con- 
formists to  hierarchical  impositions,  against  the  best 
men  that  England  has  ever  produced. 

The  universities  did  little  or  nothing  to  provide 
ministers  for  the  necessities  of  the  times.  The  condi- 
tion of  Oxford  at  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  was 
deplorable  in  the  extreme.t  In  1563  Sampson,  Hum- 
phreys, and  Kingsmill,  three  Puritans,  were  the  only 
ministers  who  could  preach,  resident  in  Oxford ;J  and 
as  if  to  deliver  over  that  university  to  the  unrestrained 
sway  of  Popery,  the  two  former  were  ejected,  while 
Papists  swarmed  in  all  the  colleges.  In  one  college, 
(Exeter,)  in  1578,  out  of  eighty  resident  members, 

*  Rest  of  Second  Replie  to  Whitgift,  ed.  1577,  p.  262. 
t  Sec  Jewell's  Letters  to  Bullmger  and  Peter  Martyr  on  the  State 
of  Oxford  ;  Burnet's  Records,  bk.  vi.  48,  56. 
t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  313. 


Iviii 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


there  were  only  four  professed  Protestants.*  When- 
ever a  Puritan  was  discovered,  he  was  instantly- 
expelled;  but  never, — so  far  as  we  could  discover, 
and  we  paid  attention  to  the  point, — never,  for  mere 
Popery,  was  one  Papist  ejected,  from  either  cure  or 
college,  throughout  the  whole  reign  of  Elizabeth. 
Oxford  continued  thus  the  stronghold  of  Popery;  and 
instead  of  providing  ministers  for  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, it  provided  members  for  Popish  colleges  "  be- 
yond the  seas."t  It  is  instructive,  not  less  to  the 
statesman  and  the  philosopher,  than  to  the  divine,  to 
find  the  self-propagating  power  of  error,  and  the  ten- 
dency to  conserve  corruption,  which  has  been  mani- 
fested in  that  celebrated  seat  of  learning.  Whenever 
Popery  is  assailed,  it  uniformly  finds  a  safe  retreat  in 
Oxford. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward,  Cambridge  had  received  a 
larger  diffusion  of  the  gospel  than  the  rival  university. 
Almost  all  the  first  prelates  of  Elizabeth  had  been 
educated  on  the  banks  of  the  Cam,  and  all  the  princi- 
pal preachers  of  the  same  period  had  been  trained  in 
the  same  place.  Cambridge,  in  fact,  along  with  Lon- 
don, was  the  head  quarters  of  Puritanism,  not  less 
among  the  undergraduates,  than  the  heads  and  mem- 
bers. From  a  faculty  which  had  been  granted  by  the 
Pope  to  that  university,  to  license  twelve  preachers 
annually,  who  might  officiate  in  any  part  of  the  king- 
dom, without  having  their  licences  countersigned  by 
the  prelates,  Cambridge  seemed  destined  to  be  the  sal- 
vation of  England.  The  Protestant  prelates,  however, 
could  not  tolerate  a  licence  to  preach,  which  even 
their  Popish  predecessors  had  patronized,  and  never 
ceased  until  they  had  deprived  Cambridge  of  its  privi- 
lege. Not  satisfied  with  this  prevention  of  preaching, 
Parker  and  his  successor  determined  to  root  out  Puri- 
tanism from  its  stronghold  ;  and  as  they  had  silenced 
its  preachers  in  London,  so  they  silenced  its  professors 
at  Cambridge.  Cartwright,  Johnson,  Dering,  Brown, 
Wilcox,  and  their  fellows,  were  expelled,  some  of 


*  Strype's  An.  ii.  196,  197. 


t  Ibid.  390,  391. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


lix 


them  imprisoned,  and  some  of  them  driven  into  ban- 
ishment. The  salt  being  thus  removed,  the  body 
sunk  into  partial  corruption.  Of  Cambridge,  however, 
it  is  right  that  it  should  be  recorded,  that  whatever  of 
Protestantism  England  possesses,  it  owes  to  that  uni- 
versity. How  singular  it  is,  that  after  the  lapse  of 
three  centuries,  the  two  English  universities  should, 
at  this  day,  retain  the  distinguishing  features  which 
characterized  them  at  the  Reformation. 

In  order  to  supply  as  much  as  they  possibly  could 
some  instructors  for  their  parishes,  the  Anglican  pre- 
lates established  in  their  dioceses  what  was  called 
"  prophesyings,"  or  "  exercises,"  that  is,  monthly  or 
weekly  meetings  of  the  clergy  for  mutual  instruction 
in  theology  and  pulpit  ministrations;  and  the  plan 
was  found  to  work  so  admirably,  that,  as  Grindal  told 
the  queen  in  1576,  when  she  commanded  him  to  sup- 
press the  prophesyings,  and  diminish  the  number  of 
preachers,  "  where  afore  were  not  three  able  preach- 
ers, now  are  thirty  meet  to  preach  at  Paul's  Cross,  and 
forty  or  fifty  besides  able  to  instruct  their  own  cures."* 
The  prophesyings,  however,  were  suppressed,  and  the 
people  left  to  perish  for  lack  of  knowledge.  On  a  sur- 
vey of  the  condition  of  England  at  the  time,  nothing 
can  more  strongly  convince  a  pious  mind  of  the  super- 
intendence of  a  gracious  Providence,  than  that  the 
kingdom  did  not  sink  into  heathenism,  or  at  least 
remain  altogether  Popish. 

The  moral  character  of  the  Anglican  priesthood 
was  of  a  piece  with  their  ignorance  and  Popish  ten- 
dencies. This  subject  is  so  disgusting,  and  the  disclo- 
sures we  could  make  so  shocking,  that  we  hesitate 
whether  it  were  not  better  to  pass  by  the  subject  in 
total  silence.  We  may  give  an  instance  or  two,  how- 
ever, as  a  specimen  of  what  was  the  almost  universal 
condition  of  this  clergy,  and  our  specimens  are  by  no 
means  the  worst  we  could  adduce.  Sandys  of  Wor- 
cester, in  his  first  visitation  in  1560,  found  in  the  city 

*  Strype's  Grindal,  Rec.  B.  ii.  No.  9,  p.  568.  We  recommend  to 
our  readers  to  peruse  the  whole  of  that  noble  letter,  the  noblest  that 
was  ever  addressed  to  Elizabeth. 


ix 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


of  Worcester,  five  or  six  priests,  "  who  kept  five  or 
six  whores  a-piece."*  And  were  they  suspended? 
Our  author  gives  not  one  single  hint  that  they  were. 
But  had  they  preached  the  gospel  at  uncanonical 
hours,  or  saved  sinners  in  uncanonical  garments,  they 
would  not  only  have  been  deposed,  but  fined,  impri- 
soned, and  perhaps  banished  or  even  put  to  death. 
The  laws  of  God  might  be  violated  with  impunity, 
but  wo  unto  him  who  broke  the  laws  of  Elizabeth 
and  Parker.  Again,  in  1559,  at  a  commission  ap- 
pointed to  visit  the  province  of  York,  comprising  the 
whole  of  the  north  and  east  of  England,  with  the 
diocese  of  Chester,  which  includes  Lancashire,  "  the 
presentments,"  that  is,  the  informations  lodged  against 
the  incumbents  "  were  most  frequent,  almost  in  every 
parish,  about  fornication,  and  keeping  other  women 
besides  their  wives,  and  for  having  bastard  children."t 
"  As  to  Bangor,  that  diocese  was  much  out  of  order, 
there  being  no  preaching  used,  and  pensionary  con- 
cubinacy  openly  continued,  which  was  an  allowance 
of  concubinacy  to  the  clergy  by  paying  a  pension  (to 
the  bishop,  or  his  court,)  notwithstanding  the  liberty 
of  marriage  granted."  And  Parker  himself  was  openly 
charged  with  having  "  such  a  commissioner  there  as 
openly  kept  three  concubines.''^  This,  let  it  be 
noticed,  was  not  a  libel  by  "  Martin  Marprelate,"  but 
an  official  report  from  a  royal  commission  presented 
to  the  privy  council.  While  Puritans  crowded  every 
pestiferous  jail  in  the  kingdom  for  merely  preaching 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  these  infamous  priests  filled 
every  parish  in  England.  Let  any  man  assert  that 
we  have  given  the  only,  or  the  most  scandalous  in- 
stances we  could  rake  up  from  the  polluted  sewer  of 
the  early  Anglican  church  history,  and  we  shall  give 
him  references  to  fifty  times  as  many  more ;  for  we 
decline  polluting  our  pages  with  such  abandoned  pro- 
fligacy. 

One  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of  those  enormous 

*  Strype's  Parker,  i.  156.  t  Strype'e  An.  i.  246. 

t  Strype's  Parker,  i.  404. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  Ixi 

evils  under  which  the  Church  of  England  at  this  time 
groaned,  was  that  prolific  mother  of  all  corruption, 
patronage,  which  has  never  existed  in  a  Church  with- 
out corrupting  it,  and  which  threatens,  if  God  inter- 
pose not,  to  destroy  our  own  beloved  Zion.  In  1584, 
"a  person  of  eminency  in  the  Church"  gives  a  fearful 
picture  of  the  evils  which  "the  devil  and  corrupt 
patrons"  had  occasioned  to  the  Anglican  establish- 
ment. "For  patrons  no w-a-days,"  he  says,  "search 
not  the  universities  for  most  fit  pastors,  but  they  post 
up  and  down  the  country  for  a  most  gainful  chap- 
man; he  that  hath  the  biggest  purse  to  pay  largely, 
not  he  that  hath  the  best  gifts  to  preach  learnedly  is 
presented."*  And  what  is  the  difference  between 
this  state  of  matters  and  what  has  existed  among  our- 
selves, but  that  the  patron,  instead  of  selling  his  pre- 
sentations for  money,  has  bestowed  them  in  return 
for  votes  for  his  nominee  to  parliament,  for  support  in 
gaining  the  lieutenancy  of  a  county,  or  (as  now  seems 
the  current  price)  for  support  in  "swamping"  the 
present  majority  in  our  General  Assembly? 

The  bishops  were  just  as  corrupt  in  the  disposal  of 
the  benefices  in  their  gift  as  the  lay  patrons.  Curtes 
of  Chichester,  for  example,  was  charged  by  several 
gentlemen  and  justices  of  peace  of  his  diocese,  among 
other  malversations  of  office,  with  keeping  benefices 
in  his  gift  long  vacant,  that  he  might  himself  pocket 
the  fruits,  and  selling  his  advowsons  to  the  highest 
bidder.t  After  a  visitation  of  his  province,  Parker 
writes  Lady  Bacon,  that  "to  sell  and  to  buy  benefices, 
to  fleece  parsonages  and  vicarages,  was  come  to  that 
pass,  that  omnia  sunt  venalia;"  that  all  ranks  were 
guilty  of  the  practice,  "so  far,  that  some  one  knight 
had  four  or  five,  and  others,  seven  or  eight  benefices 
clouted  together,"  and  retained  in  their  own  hands, 
the  parishes  all  the  while  being  vacant;  while  others 
again  set  boys  and  servants  "to  bear  the  names  of 
such  livings,"  and  others  again  bargained  them  away 


<  Strype's  An.  ii.  146.    Ibid.  Whitgift,  i.  368.         t  Ibid.  117. 


Ixh  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


at  a  fixed  sum  per  year.  And,"  he  adds,  "this  kind 
of  doing  was  common  in  all  the  country."* 

When  the  Simonists  came  for  orders  or  institution, 
they  sometimes  were  rejected  by  the  more  conscien- 
tious prelates,  on  account,  not  indeed  of  their  Simony, 
which,  so  far  as  we  have  noticed,  never  happened, 
but  on  account  of  their  gross  ignorance  and  scandal- 
ous lives.  But  the  patrons,  and  these  dutiful  sons  of 
the  Church,  anticipating  by  three  centuries,  the  prac- 
tices with  which  we  are,  alas,  but  too  familiar  in  our 
own  day,  were  not  thus  to  be  defrauded  of  their 
"vested  rights"  and  "patrimonial  interests."  They 
commenced  suits  in  the  civil  courts,  and  harassed  the 
bishops  with  the  terrors  of  a  quare  impedit,  and  of  a 
praemunire.  They  did  not  always,  however,  put 
themselves  to  that  trouble.  Some  of  the  presentees 
at  once  took  possession  of  their  benefices  without 
waiting  for  orders,  (as  we  shall  bye  and  bye  show,; 
and  set  themselves  to  read  prayers,  and  administer 
quasi  sacraments,  or  what  was  much  more  congenial 
to  their  tastes,  to  cultivate  their  glebes;  varying  the 
monotony  of  attending  "farmers'  dinners"  by  occa- 
sional other  indulgences  much  less  "moderate;"  an 
example  this,  which  (barring  the  last  part.)  we  take 
leave  most  humbly  to  commend  to  those  unpopular 
presentees  who  are  not  fortunate  enough  to  get  pre- 
sentations to  parishes  within  that  paradise  of  mode- 
ratism,  the  synod  of  Aberdeen,  or  the  presbytery  of 
Meigle. 

In  consequence  of  this  state  of  matters,  pluralities 
and  non-residence  became  universal.  Nor  could  it 
well  be  otherwise  when  the  prelates  set  such  exam- 
ples as  that  we  are  about  to  adduce  before  men  by  no 
means  disinclined  to  follow  them.    We  could  show 

*  Strype's  Parker,  i.  495-8.  By  the  22d  apostolical  canon,  the  2d 
council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  22d  Trullan  canon,  Simonists,  if  pre- 
lates, or  priests,  or  deacons,  were  to  be  deposed  and  excommunicated. 
Pray,  what  becomes  of  the  "apostolical  succession"  in  the  Church  of 
England,  if  these  canons  are  held  valid?  And  if  the  canons  are  re- 
jected, pray,  on  what  other  foundation  does  the  Church  of  England 
stand  ? 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxiii 


several  examples  of  pluralism  such  as  never,  we  are 
persuaded,  was  witnessed  in  any  other  Church.  The 
case  of  the  following  Jacobus  de  Voragine,  however, 
may  stand  for  all.  From  the  frequency  and  the 
urgency  of  the  complaints  that  came  up  to  the  privy 
council  regarding  the  state  of  the  diocese  of  St.  Asaph, 
a  commission  was  appointed  in  1587  to  visit  it.  The 
visitors,  on  their  return,  laid  the  following  report  be- 
fore the  high  commission  court,  viz.,  that  "most  of  the 
great  livings  within  the  diocese,  some  with  cure  of 
souls  and  some  without  cure,  are  either  holden  by  the 
bishop  (Hughes)"  himself  in  coinmcndam,"  or  by  non- 
residents, the  most  of  whom  were  laymen,  civilians, 
or  lawyers  in  the  archbishop's  court,  through  which 
dispensations  to  hold  commendams  were  obtained. 
The  prelate  kept  to  his  own  share  sixteen  of  the 
richest  benefices.  Fourteen  of  the  same  class  were 
held  by  the  civil  lawyers,  of  course  as  fees  for  grant- 
ing him  dispensations  to  hold  the  rest.  There  was 
not  a  single  preacher  within  the  diocese,  the  "  lord 
bishop  only  excepted,"  but  three.  One  of  the  resident 
pluralists  holding  three  benefices,  two  of  them  among 
the  richest  in  the  diocese,  kept  neither  "  house  nor 
hospitality,"  but  lived  in  an  ale  house.  The  prelate 
also  sold  (some  on  behoof  of  his  wife,  some  on  that  of 
his  children,  and  some  on  his  own)  most,  if  not  all, 
the  livings  in  his  gift,  besides  those  reserved  in  his 
own  hands.  He  would  grant  the  tithes  of  any  living 
to  any  person  who  would  pay  for  them,  reserving  for 
the  support  of  an  incumbent  what  would  not  maintain 
a  mechanic;  in  consequence  of  which  the  parishes 
remained  vacant.  In  his  visitations  he  would  compel 
the  clergy,  besides  the  customary  "procurations,"  as 
they  are  called,  (that  is,  an  assessment  upon  the  clergy 
to  pay  the  ordinary  expenses  of  a  prelate  during  a 
visitation  through  his  diocese,)  to  pay  also  for  all  his 
train.* 

Our  readers  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear  that  this 
wholesale  dealer  in  tithes  and  benefices  was  amassing 


*  Strype's  An.  iii.  435,  436,  and  iv.  Ap.  No.  32. 


lxiV  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


a  handsome  fortune  and  purchasing  large  estates,  be- 
sides dealing  in  mortgages  and  other  profitable  specu- 
lations. But  they  will  be  surprised  to  hear  that  no 
commendam  could  be  held  without  a  dispensation 
from  the  archbishop's  court,  and  that  while  hundreds 
of  parishes  throughout  England  were  vacant  for  want 
of  ministers  to  supply  them,  and  while  hundreds  more 
were  so  poor  that  they  could  not  support  a  minister,* 
Parker  was  accustomed  to  grant  dispensations  to  pre- 
lates to  hold  commendams,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
able  to  maintain  what  he  so  much  loved  and  com- 
mended to  others,  viz.,  "the  port  of  a  bishop ;"t  and 
they  may  also  be  surprised,  that  is  to  say  if  they  are 
not  so  well  acquainted  with  the  primate  as  we  hap- 
pen to  be,  when  we  tell  them  that  Parker  was  paid  a 
sort  of  per  centage  upon  all  these  dispensations;  not 
that  we  insinuate  that  this  had  any  share  in  inducing 
him  to  grant  them,  although  his  own  maintenance  of 
the  "port  of  a  bishop"  entailed  upon  him  no  trifling 
expense. 1 

Our  readers  will  now  be  prepared  to  receive  the 

*  There  are  in  England  4543  livings,  if  livings  they  can  be  called, 
under  L.  10.  See  an  extract  from  a  document  from  the  state  paper 
office  on  the  value  of  all  the  benefices  in  England  in  Collier  ix.  Rec. 
No.  99.  "Tlio  Church  of  England  probably  stands  alone,"  says 
Bishop  Short,  "in  latter  times  as  exhibiting  instances  of  ecclesiastical 
offices  unprovided  with  any  temporal  support."  Sketch,  &c.  p.  188. 
"The  extreme  poverty  which  has  been  entailed  on  many  of  our 
livings,"  he  says  again,  "is  one  of  the  greatest  evils  which  afflicts 
our  Church  property,"  p.  509.  And  he  says  elsewhere,  that  if  it  were 
not  for  the  number  of  persons  of  independent  fortune  who  take  orders 
in  the  Church  of  England,  (allured  of  course  by  the  higher  prizes,) 
many  of  the  cures  must  remain  vacant.  The  manner  in  which  the 
Church  of  England,  and  our  own  Church  also,  were  pillaged  at  the 
Reformation  by  our  benevolent  friends  the  patrons,  is  an  inviting  sub- 
ject for  a  dissertation,  but  we  must  not  enter  upon  it  here. 

t  For  this  purpose,  he  granted  to  Cheney  a  dispensation  to  hold 
Bristol  in  commendam  with  Gloucester.  And  for  precisely  the  same 
purpose,  he  granted  Bletliyn  of  LandafF  a  dispensation  to  hold  the 
archdeaconry  of  Brecon,  the  rectory  of  Roget,  a  prebend  in  LandaiF, 
the  rectory  of  Sunningwell,  and  in  addition,  "to  hold  alia  quacunque, 
quotcunquc,  quiiliacunqiie,  not  exceeding  L.  100  per  an."  Strype's 
Parker,  ii.  4J1,  422. 

t  As  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  Parker  maintained  the 
"port  of  a  bishop,"  the  reader  may  consult  Strype's  Parker,  i.  378 — 
380,  253,  254 ;  ii.  278,  296,  297,  &c. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxV 


following  account  of  the  state  of  the  Church  and  king- 
dom of  England,  drawn  up  by  the  industrious  Strype* 
from  the  papers  of  Cecil: — 

"The  state  of  the  Church  and  religion  at  this  time 
(1572)  was  but  low  and  sadly  neglected.  .  .  .  The 
churchmen  heaped  up  many  benefices  upon  them- 
selves and  resided  upon  none,  neglecting  their  cures. 
Many  of  them  alienated  their  lands;  made  unreason- 
able leases  and  wastes  of  their  woods;  granted  re- 
versions and  advowsons  to  their  wives  and  children, 
or  to  others  for  their  use.  Churches  ran  greatly  into 
dilapidation  and  decay,  and  were  kept  nasty  and 
filthy,  and  indecent  for  God's  worship.  .  .  .  Among 
the  laity  there  was  little  devotion;  the  Lord's  day 
greatly  profaned  and  little  observed;  the  common 
prayers  not  frequented ;  some  lived  without  any  ser- 
vice of  God  at  all;  many  were  mere  heathens  and 
atheists;  the  queen's  own  court  an  harbour  for  epi- 
cures and  atheists,  and  a  kind  of  lawless  place  because 
it  stood  in  no  parish ; — which  things  made  good 
men  fear  some  bad  judgments  impending  over  the 
nation." 

And  yet  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  can 
find  no  terms  sufficiently  strong  in  which  to  praise  the 
reformation  in  their  own  Church,  or  dispraise  that  in 
the  other  Protestant  churches. 

It  may  not  be  improper,  although  we  have  scru- 
pulously confined  ourselves  to  Church  of  England 
authorities,  to  give  the  testimony  of  a  contemporary 
Puritan  as  to  the  condition  of  that  Church  about 
1570:— 

"  I  could  rehearse  by  name,"  says  our  author,  "  a 
bishop's  boy,  ruffianly  both  in  behaviour  and  apparel, 
at  every  word  swearing  and  staring,  having  ecclesi- 
astical promotions — a  worthy  prebend  (prebendary?) 
no  doubt.  I  could  name  whoremongers  being  taken, 
and  also  confessing  their  lechery,  and  yet  both  enjoy- 
ing their  livings  and  also  having  their  mouths  open, 
and  not  stopped  nor  forbidden  to  preach.    I  know 

*  Life  of  Parker,  ii.  204,  205. 
E 


lXVi  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

also  some  that  have  said  mass  diverse  years  since  it 
was  prohibited,  and  upon  their  examination  confessed 
the  same,  yet  are  in  quiet  possession  of  their  eccle- 
siastical promotions.  I  know  double  beneficed  men 
that  do  nothing  but  eat,  drink,  sleep,  play  at  dice 
tables,  bowls,  and  read  service  in  the  Church, — but 
"  these  infect  not  their  flocks  with  false  doctrine,  for 
they  teach  nothing  at  all."* 

Where  is  the  man  who  ponders  over  these  state- 
ments that  will  not  sympathize  with  the  bishop  of 
Sodor  and  Man,  in  the  reflection  with  which  he  closes 
his  history  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth? — "The  feeling 
which  the  more  attentive  study  of  these  times  is  cal- 
culated to  inspire,"  says  Dr.  Short,t  "is  the  conviction 
of  the  superintendence  of  Providence  over  the  Church 
of  Christ."  Assuredly  but  for  the  watchful  provi- 
dence of  the  God  of  all  grace,  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  England  could  never  have  survived  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth. 

There  is  just  one  subject  more  to  which  we  must 
allude  before  we  bring  the  lengthened  sketch  of  the 
Anglican  Reformation  to  a  close ;  and  we  do  so  in 
order  to  show  our  readers  that  if  "apostolical  succes- 

*  Parte  of  a  Register,  p.  8.  See  also  passim,  the  first  of  the  Mar 
Prelate  Tracts,  just  reprinted  by  Mr.  John  Petheram,  bookseller,  71 
Chancery  Lane,  London.  The  Mar  Prelate  Tracts  having  been 
written  in  a  satirical  style,  were  disclaimed  by  the  stern  and  severe 
Puritans  of  the  times,  but  so  far  as  facts  are  concerned,  we  hold  them 
perfectly  trustworthy.  We  have  read  through  Martin's  Epistle,  just 
published,  and  will  at  any  time,  at  five  minutes'  warning,  undertake 
to  establish  by  positive  or  presumptive  evidence  the  substantial,  and 
in  the  great  majority  of  cases  the  verbal,  truth  of  any  important  fact 
it  contains.  Mr.  Petheram  intends,  should  he  receive  sufficient  en- 
couragement, to  reprint  by  subscription,  in  a  neat  cheap  form,  several 
of  the  old  Puritan  tracts,  such  as  The  Troubles  at  Frankfort,  Ad- 
monition to  Parliament,  Parte  of  a  Register,  and  others  exceedingly 
valuable,  but  so  exceedingly  rare,  that  not  one  in  a  hundred  of  our 
readers  can  ever  have  seen  them.  Mr.  Petheram  illustrates  these 
tracts  by  judicious  antiquarian  notes,  that  add  greatly  to  their  value. 
We  recommend  our  readers  in  the  strongest  terms  to  possess  them- 
selves of  these  curious  and  valuable  productions,  and  trust  Mr. 
Petheram  may  receive  such  encouragement  in  his  spirited  enterprise 
as  may  induce  him  to  reprint  even  larger  works  of  the  old  Puritan 
divines. 

t  Sketch,  &c.  p.  318. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  Ixvii 

sion,"  or  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  ministers 
canonically  baptized,  and  prelatically  ordained  and 
consecrated,  be  essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church, 
then  the  Church  of  England  not  only  cannot  prove 
that  she  has  this  essential  qualification,  but  we  can 
prove  that  she  has  lost  it,  at  least  to  an  extent  that 
invalidates  all  her  pretensions  to  its  possession. 

We  have  some  time  ago  shown,  that,  on  canonical 
principles,  baptism  is  valid  only  when  it  is  adminis- 
tered by  a  minister  canonically,  that  is,  as  it  is  com- 
monly understood,  prelatically  ordained ;  and  that 
without  such  baptism  a  man's  orders,  however  canoni- 
cally conferred,  are  null  and  void,  inasmuch  as  he 
wanted  a  qualification  which  is  essential  as  a  sub- 
stratum for  orders  subsequently  received.  Ministers 
of  the  Church  of  England,  if  they  would  prove  that 
they  possess  an  apostolical  succession,  must  first  prove 
that  all  through  whom  baptism  and  orders  have  de- 
scended to  them  have  themselves  been  canonically 
baptized  and  ordained.  But  how  can  this  be  proved 
in  the  presence  of  such  facts  as  the  following  ?  Mid- 
wives,  about  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  were,  it 
would  appear,  frequently  guilty  of  changing  infants 
at  birth,  strangling  and  beheading  them,  and  bap- 
tizing them  in  what  were  called  cases  of  necessity, 
with  perfumed  and  artificial  water,  and  "odd  and 
profane  words"  and  ceremonies.  On  these  accounts 
it  was  deemed  necessary  not  only  to  bind  them  over 
to  keep  the  peace  towards  these  "  innocents,"  but  to 
grant  them  a  species  of  orders,  by  which  they  might 
be  admitted  among  the  subaltern  grades  of  the  hier- 
archy. Parker,  for  example,  in  1567,  grants  to  Elea- 
nor Pead,  a  license  to  administer  baptism,  (having 
first  exacted  of  her  an  oath  of  canonical  obedience)  of 
the  following  tenor, — «  Also,  that  in  the  ministration 
of  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  I  will  use  apt,  and  the 
accustomed  words  of  the  same  sacrament,  that  is  to 
say,  these  words  following,  or  the  like  in  effect,  <  I 
christen  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,'  and  none  other  profane  words."* 


*  Strype's  An.  i.  ii.  242—3. 


lXViii  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

Now,  without  being  so  hypercritical  as  to  maintain 
that,  Parker,  in  calling  the  words  "I  christen  thee," 
&c.  "profane  words,"  as  in  the  above  sentence  he 
necessarily  does,  seems  himself  to  acknowledge  the 
invalidity  of  such  pretended  sacrament;  and  without 
maintaining  that  the  omission  of  the  scriptural  term 
"I  baptize,"  and  the  substitution  of  the  unscriptural 
and  heretical  term  "I  christen,"  invalidates  the  whole 
act,  (even  had  it  been  performed  by  Parker  himself) 
but  granting  that  these  irregularities  derogate  nothing 
from  the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  as  performed  by 
the  said  Eleanor,  we  yet  beg  leave  to  demand  of 
every  pretender  to  the  apostolical  succession  in  the 
Anglican  Church,  to  prove  to  our  satisfaction  that 
some  of  his  ghostly  fathers  were  not  "christened"  by 
Eleanor  Pead,  or  some  of  her  "sage"  sisterhood;  and 
if  they  were,  then  to  show  us  any  authority  whatever 
that  such  "  sage  femme"  has  to  administer  baptism 
any  more  than  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  finally,  if  he 
contends  that  Eleanor  Pead  did,  or  could  possess  such 
authority,  then  we  ask  on  what  ground  could  she  be 
inhibited  from  performing  the  other  acts  of  the  minis- 
try, or  why  deacons,  priests,  and  prelates  are  at  all 
necessary,  seeing  an  apostolical  succession  of  mid- 
wives  is  just  as  sufficient  as  that  of  prelates  or  Popes? 
We  trust  these  remarks  may  not  be  considered  very 
unreasonable. 

But  we  possess  ample  evidence  that  midwives  were 
not  the  only  uncanonical  administrators  of  sacraments 
during  the  Anglican  Reformation.  We  have  already 
shown  that  the  bishops  were  persecuted,  both  by 
patrons  and  presentees,  when  ordination  and  institu- 
tion were  refused  to  unqualified  candidates.*  But 
we  have  now  to  show  that  many  of  those  whose  only 
objects  in  getting  a  "  living,"  was  what  the  term  so 
expressively  signifies,  on  meeting  with  patrons,  whose 
only  desire  was  to  make  the  most  of  their  "patri- 
monial rights,  and  vested  interests,"  not,  indeed,  in 
the  patriotic  form  of  "  swamping"  a  noble-minded 
majority,  who  will  neither  be  bullied  nor  bribed  into 


*  See  for  example  Strypc's  Parker,  ii.  84 — 87. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxix 


a  sacrifice  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  Christ  and  his 
people,  (that  plan  was  reserved  for  Scottish  patrons 
in  the  nincteenlh  century)  but  in  the  more  substantial, 
though  not  more  offensive  shape,  of  getting  a  good  price 
for  the  presentation,  or  a  long  lease,  or  fee-simple  pos- 
session of  the  best  part  of  the  benefice,  had  recourse  to 
a  plan  which  we  again  beg  leave  to  recommend  to 
those  of  our  unpopular  "moderate"  preachers  who 
may  happen  to  have  got  into  the  good  graces  of  our 
Dukes  of  Richmond,  our  Earls  of  Kinnoul,  and  our 
Sir  James  Grahams;  that  is,  in  plain  terms,  these 
Anglican  intrusionist  presentees,  without  troubling 
prelate  or  primate  for  orders,  at  once,  in  simple  virtue 
of  their  civil  presentations,  not  only  took  possession  of 
the  temporalities,  but  set  themselves  to  perform  all 
clerical  acts,  as  ministers  of  the  parishes.  Are  we 
wrong  in  thinking,  as  we  really  do,  it  were  more 
manly  and  rational  for  those  who  maintain  that  a  pre- 
sentation, in  ordinary  circumstances,  necessarily  leads 
to  ordination,  at  once  to  take  possession  of  their  bene- 
fices, in  virtue  of  a  warrant  from  the  Court  of  Session, 
rather  than  trouble  themselves  and  others  for  ordina- 
tions (so  termed)  from  men  who  have  no  power  to 
confer  orders  but  in  virtue  of  warrants  from  the  civil 
courts?  If,  when  the  Church  hath  withdrawn  the 
orders  she  conferred,  the  Court  of  Session  can  confer 
orders  of  its  own  (for  that  is  the  true  state  of  the  case,) 
why  not  remain  satisfied  with  a  civil  title  to  a  civil 
right,  or  with  orders  from  the  civil  court  rather  than 
an  unmeaning  ceremonial  at  the  hands  of  its  nomi- 
nees? But  leaving  these  suggestions  to  be  pondered 
on  by  those  whom  they  may  concern,  wc  return  to 
the  history  of  "  unordained  ministers"  in  the  Church 
of  England. 

Let  us  just  present  a  sample  of  the  numerous  cases 
we  could  refer  to  by  simply  searching  through  the 
notes  extracted  by  our  own  hand  from  the  works  of 
the  "industrious  Strype."  In  1567,  in  a  visitation 
of  the  cathedral  of  Norwich,  it  was  discovered  that 
one  of  the  archdeacons  (a  part  of  whose  functions  it 
is  to  institute,  or  as  we  call  it,  to  induct,  into  benefices) 


lXX  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


and  a  prebendary  were  not  in  orders  at  all.*  In  1568, 
the  bishop  of  Gloucester  wrote  Parker  that  he  had  dis- 
covered in  his  diocese  two  men  who  had  "  adminis- 
tered the  communion,  christened  infants,  and  married 
people,  and  done  other  spiritual  offices  in  the  Church, 
and  yet  never  took  holy  orders.  One  of  them  had 
counterfeited  that  bishop's  seal,  and  the  other  was 
perjured."t  In  1574,  there  was  "one  Lowth,  of 
Carlisle  side,  who,  though  he  had  for  fifteen  or  six- 
teen years  exercised  the  function,  yet  he  proved  to  be 
ordered  neither  priest  nor  minister.";):  He  was  dis- 
covered in  consequence  of  some  irregularity  in  his 
conformity,  which  led  to  his  examination,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  which  he  was  discovered  to  be  a  mere 
layman.  Had  he  conformed,  like  so  many  more  who 
were  in  similar  circumstances,  he  might  perhaps,  lay- 
man though  he  was,  have  risen  to  the  bench.  In 
1832,  the  bishop  of  St.  David's  wrote  to  Walsingham 
that  he  found  in  his  diocese  "divers  that  pretended 
to  be  ministers,  and  had  counterfeited  divers  bishops' 
seals,  as  Gloucester,  Hereford,  LandafF  and  his  pre- 
decessors, being  not  called  at  all  to  the  ministry." 
There  must  have  been  at  least  four  of  them,  and  they 
had  been  in  their  cures  "  by  the  space  of  eight,  ten, 
twelve,  and  some  fourteen  years."§  "But  among 
the  scandalous  churchmen  in  these  days  (1571,)  the 
greatest  surely,"  says  Strype,||  who,  however,  knew 
far  too  much  to  be  very  confident  in  his  assertion, — 

"  the  greatest  surely  was  one  Blackall  He  had 

four  wives  alive  He  had  intruded  himself  into 

the  ministry  for  the  space  of  twelve  years,  and  yet 
was  never  lawfully  called,  nor  made  minister  by  any 
bishop.  .  .  .  He  was  a  chopper  and  changer  of  bene- 
fices," (that  is,  he  was  successful  in  getting  a  variety 
of  presentations  to  benefices  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  into  which  he  intruded  himself,  without  ask- 
ing the  leave  or  concurrence  of  any  prelate — a  very 
frequent  occurrence  at  the  time,)  "  little  caring  by 

*  Strype's  Parker,  i.  492.  t  Ibid.  i.  534. 

1  Ibid,  ii.  400.    Life  of  Grindal,  275—6. 

§  Strype's  Life  of  Grindal,  401.  ||  Annals,  iii.  144—5. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxxi 


what  ways  or  means  so  (as)  he  might  get  money  from 
any  man.  He  would  run  from  country  to  country, 
and.  from  town  to  town,  leading  about  with  him 
naughty  women,  as  in  Gloucestershire  he  led  a 
naughty  strumpet  about  the  country,  (nick)  named 
Green  Apron.  He  altered  his  name  wherever  he 
went,  going  by  these  several  surnames,  Blackall, 
Barthall,  Dorel,  Barkly,  Baker!!" 

Was  there  ever  a  church  upon  the  earth  in  which 
such  a  monster  as  this  could  exist,  in  which  such  atro- 
cious irregularities,  and  not  only  irregularities,  but 
criminalities,  could  be  openly  perpetrated  for  the  space 
of  twelve  years,  without  censure  or  detection,  but  the 
Church  of  England  alone  ?  And  are  we  now,  in 
blind  unenquiring  submission  to  "  bulls"  from  Oxford, 
or  London  or  Lambeth,  in  spite  of  such  infamous 
facts  open  to  the  whole  world, — are  we,  renouncing 
the  characteristic  attributes  of  man,  and  resigning  the 
direction  of  our  judgments,  and  the  interests  of  our 
souls  into  the  hands  of  the  successors,  not  of  the  apos- 
tles, but  of  such  miscreants  as  Blackall,  to  receive,  as 
the  only  commissioned  messengers  of  Heaven  to  our 
land,  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  ?  So 
common  in  fact  was  the  practice  of  taking  possession 
of  benefices  without  orders,  and  when  the  right  of  pos- 
session was  at  any  time  questioned,  to  forge  letters  of 
orders,  that  in  1575,  that  is,  seventeen  years  after  the 
Anglican  Church  was  settled  under  Elizabeth,  the  mat- 
ter was  brought  before  convocation,  and  it  was  en- 
acted, that  "  diligent  inquisition  should  be  made  for 
such  as  forged  letters  of  orders,"  and  "  that  bishops 
certify  one  another  of  counterfeit  ministers."*  The 
reason  of  this  last  enactment  was,  that  when  one  of 
these  "counterfeit  ministers"  was  detected  in  one  dio- 
cese, he  fled  into  another,  and  so  little  unity  of  action 
was  there,  or  can  there  ever  be,  in  a  prelatic  regimen, 
(unlike  our  Church  courts)  that  the  same  course  of 
"counterfeit  ministry"  might  be  gone  through  in  suc- 
cession in  all  the  dioceses  in  England. 

*  Strype's  Grindal,  290.  One  of  these  was  e.g.  summoned  before 
the  convocation  of  1584.    Strype's  Whitgift,  i.  398. 


IXXli  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 


What  now,  we  repeat,  becomes  of  the  claim  to  the 
apostolical  succession,  so  confidently  and  offensively 
put  forth  by  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England? 
"  Even  in  the  memory  of  persons  living,"  says  arch- 
bishop Whately,*  "there  existed  a  bishop,  concerning 
whom  there  was  so  much  mystery  and  uncertainty 
prevailing,  as  to  when,  and  where,  and  by  whom  he 
had  been  ordained,  that  doubts  existed  in  the  minds 
of  many  persons  whether  he  had  ever  been  ordained 
at  all,"  .  .  and  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and 
from  the  fact  that  such  doubts  did  prevail  in  the  minds 
of  well-informed  persons,  it  is  certain  "that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  were  such  as  to  make  manifest 
the  possibility  of  such  an  irregularity  occurring  under 
such  circumstances."  Such  an  irregularity,  then,  as 
a  man  not  only  officiating  in  the  lower  grades  of  the 
ministry,  but  even  rising  to  the  primacy  of  the  Church 
of  England,  without  ever  having  been  in  orders,  or 
rather  such  a  subversion  of  the  very  first  elements  of 
an  apostolical  constitution,  was  not  confined  to  the 
dark  and  troublous  period  of  the  Reformation,  when 
the  whole  framework  of  society  was  dissolved  into 
its  first  rudiments,  and  every  species  of  irregularity 
not  only  might,  but  as  we  know  did  occur,  but  the 
very  same  "  unchurching"  irregularities  have  existed 
in  the  Church  of  England  down  through  every  age 
of  its  history,  "till  within  the  memory  of  persons  now 
living."  Any  one  who  will  look  at  a  "genealogical 
tree,"  and  observe  how  many  wide  spreading  and  far 
distant  branches  may  spring  from  one  stem,  will  easily 
perceive  how  a  very  few  such  unordaiued  or  "  coun- 
terfeit ministers"  as  we  have  referred  to,  and  shown 
to  have  existed  in  the  Church  of  England,  were  amply 
enough  to  have  destroyed  all  apostolical  succession 
in  the  kingdom.  Such  withered  branches  could  not 
transmit  any  portion  of  the  "sacred  deposit."  All 
who  have  succeeded  to  them  are  no  successors  of  the 
apostles;  and  we  challenge  any,  and  every  minister 
in  the  Church  of  England  to  prove  to  us  that  he  has 
not  received  all  the  orders  he  ever  possessed,  through 
some  of  these  Eleanor  Peads,  Lowths  of  Carlisle  side, 

*  On  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  178. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxxiti 

or  Blackalls — a  glorious  parentage,  certainly,  of  which 
they  have  great  reason  to  be  vain. 

We  have  not,  for  our  own  part,  been  very  much  ad- 
dicted to  boast  of  our  ancestry,  albeit  it  contains  names 
of  whose  call  and  commission  from  Heaven  Ave  have 
no  more  doubt  than  we  have  of  those  of  the  apostle 
Paul.  We  have  commonly  found,  in  private  life, 
that  such  boasting  is  very  much  a  characteristic  of 
upstart  parvenus,  and  we  have  yet  to  learn  that  it  is 
greatly  different  in  regard  to  official  descent.  Should 
occasion,  however,  demand,  we  have  no  great  dislike 
to  pay  a  visit  to  the  Herald's  College,  and  demon- 
strate to  our  Southern  neighbours  that  we  have  no 
such  bar  sinister  in  ours  as  defaces  their  clerical  es- 
cutcheon. May  we  therefore  drop  a  hint  to  certain 
parties,  that,  however  they  may  do  it  in  private,  where 
no  one  may  mark  their  confusion,  they  should  be 
specially  chary  how,  in  public,  they  turn  up  any  ec- 
clesiastical "  Debrett."  Much  as  they  decry,  and 
often  as  they  twit  our  Wesleyan  friends,  he  must  have 
a  peculiarly  constituted  taste,  indeed,  who  would  not 
prefer  even  genuine  "  Brumagem  orders"  to  sach  as 
have  been  forged  by  such  ghostly  progenitors  as  they 
boast  of. 

We  had  purposed  to  show  multifarious*  and  other 
irregularities  in  the  organization  of  the  Church  of 
England.  We  have,  however,  more  than  exhausted 
our  present  space.  But  should  God  grant  us  health 
we  may  soon  return  to  the  subject,  for  we  can  assure 
our  readers  we  have  only  broken  ground,  and  simply 
tested  the  range  and  capabilities  of  our  ordnance.  It 
is  assuredly  in  itself  no  grateful  task  to  rake  up  the 
errors  of  the  dead,  and  expose  the  defects  in  our 
neighbours'  ecclesiastical  constitution.  But  it  has 
become  necessary.  We  have  now  no  option.  The 
Church  of  England  has  now,  for  years,  unprovoked, 
unresisted,  poured  upon  us  such  torrents  of  abuse, 
from  her  lordliest  prelates  to  her  obscurest  curates, — 
she  has  vilified  all  we  held  sacred,  insulted  all  we 
held  dear,  and  we  must  either  tamely  submit  to  see 
our  beloved  Church  covered  with  infamy,  or  hurl 
back  the  foul  missiles  upon  the  aggressors. 


lxXlV  THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION. 

An  observation  or  two  in  conclusion.  We  have, 
upon  this  occasion,  confined  our  remarks  to  the  history 
of  Elizabeth's  first  prelates.  The  second  set  became 
much  less  pious  and  Protestant,  and  consequently  we 
have  selected  the  period  most  favourable  to  the  Church 
of  England.  This  is  clearly  implied  in  a  passage  we 
have  given  from  the  British  Critic,  and  we  may  here- 
after prove  it,  should  any  call  it  in  question.  Our 
authorities  have  been  exclusively  from  Church  of 
England  writers;  not  certainly  because  we  deemed 
them  more  trustworthy  than  others,  for  no  man  of 
any  pretensions  to  candour  will  dispute,  as  Bishop 
Short  has  remarked,*  that  members  of  other  com- 
munions cannot  be  supposed  to  be  more  prejudiced 
against  her  than  her  own  members  are  in  her  favour. 
We  have  selected  this  course,  because  we  have  found 
her  own  writers  establish  all  that  we  desire  in  order 
to  accomplish  our  end.  When  they  write  against  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  will  they  follow  our  example  ? 
If  they  do,  it  will  present  a  new  phasis  in  the  contro- 
versy. Hitherto  they  have  taken  as  their  authorities 
work*  written  by  non-jurors,  and  Scottish  prelatic 
sectaries,  the  most  unscrupulous  controversialists  that 
ever  disgraced  a  cause  that  had  little  indeed  to  com- 
mend it.  W e  have  said  that  the  Church  of  England, 
in  every  thing  of  importance,  stands  now  precisely 
where  she  stood  at  the  demise  of  Elizabeth.  This 
may  be  called  in  question  by  those  who  know  not  the 
facts  of  the  case.  We  therefore  appeal  to  the  follow- 
ing testimony  of  one  of  her  living  prelates.  "  The 
kingdom,"  says  Bishop  Short,t  "  has,  for  the  last  two 
hundred  years,  been  making  rapid  strides  in  every 
species  of  improvement,  and  a  corresponding  altera- 

*  Sketch,  &c.  sect.  419. 

t  Sketch  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  2d  edit.  pp.  436-7. 
Note.  This  is  a  work  which  we  recommend  to  our  readers.  That 
we  do  not  agree  with  Dr.  Short  in  many  of  his  statements  we  have 
not  concealed.  But  we  should  do  him  injustice  if  we  did  not  say,  that 
although  his  work  is  brief,  too  brief,  and  not  free  from  faults,  from 
which  we  never  expect  to  see  a  history  of  the  Church  of  England,  by 
one  of  her  own  ministers,  altogether  exempt,  still  it  is  incomparably 
the  best  work  on  the  subject  which  an  Anglican  clergyman  has  ever 
produced. 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION.  lxXV 


tion  in  the  laws  on  every  subject  has  taken  place; 
during  this  period  nothing  has  been  remedied  in 
the  church^  (the  italics  are  ours.)  So  grievous  are 
the  abuses  which  the  anomalous  constitution  of  the 
Anglican  church  has  entailed  upon  her,  that  Dr. 
Short  hesitates  not  to  say,  (with  his  usually  inter- 
jected "  perhaps,"  whenever  he  gives  utterance  to  an 
unpalatable  sentiment)  that  "the  temporal  advan- 
tages which  the  establishment  possesses,  are,  perhaps, 
more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  total  inability  of 
the  church  to  regulate  any  thing  within  herself,  and 
the  great  want  of  discipline  over  the  clergy ;  .  .  .  . 
while  the  absurd  nature  of  our  ecclesiastical  laws  ren- 
ders every  species  of  discipline  over  the  laity  not  only 
nugatory,  but  when  it  is  exercised,  frequently  unchris- 
tian, ridiculous,  and  in  many  cases  very  oppressive," 
as  in  the  case  of  excommunication,  by  which  a  man 
is  deprived,  not  only  of  all  ecclesiastical  privileges, 
but  even  of  civil,  yea,  of  all  social  rights. 

Some  of  our  readers  may  be  inclined  to  ask,  if  all 
these  things  be  in  reality  so,  how  does  it  happen  that 
good,  pious,  enlightened  men  remain  in  the  commun- 
ion of  the  Church  of  England?  Now  this  is  a  question 
that  ought  not  to  be  asked,  and  being  asked,  ought 
not  to  be  answered.  We  judge  no  man.  To  his  own 
master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  We  can,  however, 
assign  one  reason,  which,  besides  the  all-powerful 
one  of  the  prejudices  of  education,  is  sufficient  to 
account  to  our  own  mind,  and  that  without  any  im- 
putation against  them,  for  such  men  remaining  in, the 
Anglican  church,  and  that  is,  total  ignorance  of  her 
character  and  constitution.  Let  not  this  insinuation 
startle  our  readers.  We  shall  prove  that  such  ignor- 
ance exists.  Dr.  Short,  in  the  preface  to  his  work, 
(p.  1 )  assigns  as  the  reason  that  led  him  to  commence 
his  history,  that  he  «  discovered  after  he  was  admitted 
into  orders,"  and  when  engaged  as  tutor  in  his  college, 
"  that  the  knowledge  of  English  ecclesiastical  history 

which  he  possessed  was  very  deficient  He 

was  distressed  that  his  knowledge  of  the  sects  among 
the  philosophers  of  Athens  was  greater  than  his  infor- 
mation on  questions  which  affect  the  Church  of  Eng- 


lxxvi 


THE  ANGLICAN  REFORMATION'. 


land."  Dr.  Short's  is  no  singular  case.  The  ignorance 
of  Anglican  ministers  upon  the  history  and  constitu- 
tion of  their  own  church  would  astonish  our  readers. 
A  memorable  instance  of  this  has  recently  come  to  light 
in  this  city,  and  we  allude  to  it  because  the  well-known 
conscientiousness  and  high  character  of  the  party  con- 
cerned give  the  instance  all  the  greater  authority. 
The  Rev.  D.  T.  K.  Drummond,  for  whom  personally 
we  entertain  the  very  highest  respect,  has  shown,  in 
one  of  his  recent  tracts,  that  he  never,  till  within  the 
last  few  days,  had  examined,  or  at  least  understood, 
the  canons  of  that  sect  of  which  he  was  a  minister; 
or  at  all  events,  that  he  was  ignorant  of  what  it  re- 
gards as  by  far  the  most  important  part  of  its  services, 
— the  communion  office.  Mr.  Drummond  was,  for 
years,  a  minister  in  that  body,  and  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  a  shadow  of  suspicion  ever  crossed  his 
mind  that  its  constitution  contained  anything  either 
positively  erroneous,  or  sinfully  defective ;  indeed  his 
character  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  no  such  thought 
ever  found  harbourage  in  his  breast,  for  had  he  but 
entertained  the  suspicion,  he  would  not  have  remained 
one  day  in  that  communion.  And  yet  in  the  consti- 
tution and  liturgical  offices  of  that  sect  there  existed 
all  the  while  a  plague-spot  so  deadly,  that,  on  its  dis- 
covery, Mr.  Drummond  is  compelled,  as  he  values  his 
own  soul,  to  come  out  of  Babylon,  that  he  be  not  a 
partaker  of  her  sins  and  punishment.  Such  will  also 
be  the  result  to  which  pious  ministers  in  the  Church 
of  England  will  be  brought,  should  they  ever  unpre- 
judicedly and  dispassionately  examine  her  constitu- 
tion. And  should  Mr.  Drummond,  as  we  doubt  not 
he  will,  continue  his  investigations  in  the  spirit  in 
which  he  has  commenced  them,  we  shall  be  aston- 
ished, indeed,  if  his  love  of  truth,  and  of  Him  who  is 
the  truth,  does  not  lead  him  to  renounce  all  commu- 
nion with  the  Church  of  England,  as  he  has  already 
done  with  the  Scottish  prelatic  sectaries.  A  sifting 
time  is  at  hand;  and  when  the  breath  of  the  living 
God  has  blown  over  the  thrashing  floor  of  the  Church, 
we  confidently  anticipate  that  only  the  chaff  shall 
remain  in  the  Church  of  England. 


THE  EXCLUSIVE  CLAIMS 

OF 

PUSEYITE  EPISCOPALIANS 

TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY 

INDEFENSIBLE: 

WITH  AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  DIVINE  RIGHT  OF 

EPISCOPACY  AND  THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION: 

IN  A  SERIES  OE  LETTERS  TO  THE  REV.  DR.  PUSEY. 

By  JOHN  BROWN,  D.D. 


"  Nothing  has  so  effectually  thrown  contempt  upon  a  regular  sue 
cession  of  the  ministry,  as  the  calling  no  succession  regular  but  what 
was  uninterrupted,  and  the  making  the  eternal  salvation  of  Chris- 
tians to  depend  upon  that  uninterrupted  succession,  of  which  the  most 
learned  can  have  the  least  assurance,  and  the  unlearned  can  have  no 
notion,  but  through  ignorance  and  credulity."  Hoadly. 

"  They  who  would  reduce  the  Church  to  the  form  of  government 
thereof  in  the  primitive  times  would  be  found  pecking  towards  the 
Presbytery  of  Scotland :  Which,  for  my  part,  I  believe  in  point  of 

fovernment  cometh  nearer  than  either  yours  (the  Popish)  or  ours  of 
Ipiscopacy  to  the  first  age  of  Christ's  Church."         Lord  Digby. 


CONTENDS. 


LETTER  I. 

Ungenerous  and  unprovoked  attack  by  Puseyite  Episcopalians  on 
Presbyterian  Churches. — Alarming-  view  presented  by  the  former, 
of  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  latter. — Necessity  imposed  on 
Presbyterians  to  defend  their  principles.,   17 


LETTER  H. 

Exclusive  claims  of  Puseyite  Episcopalians  to  the  Christian  ministry 
by  no  means  of  recent  origin. — Saravia  not  the  author  of  them,  but 
Laud. — Account  of  the  principal  individuals  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land who  have  brought  them  forward  at  different  periods,  when  they 
considered  her  to  be  in  danger. — Their  doctrines  proved  to  be  con- 
trary to  her  principles,  from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the  writings 
of  the  Bishops  who  composed  her  Formularies,  and  their  immediate 
successors,  their  conduct  towards  Presbyterian  Churches,  the  Char- 
ter granted  by  Edward  the  Sixth  to  these  Churches  in  London, 
and  the  establishment  of  Presbytery  by  Elizabeth  in  Jersey  and 
Guernsey,  21 


LETTER  III. 

These  doctrines  condemned  in  the  strongest  terms  by  the  most  dis- 
tinguished Protestant  Statesmen  after  the  Reformation;  Cecil,  the 
Lord  President  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  Council,  Sir  Francis  Knollys, 
and  Lord  Bacon,  and  denounced  as  "  a  Popish  conceit,"  by  the 
leading  bishops  and  clergy. — Dissimilarity  between  the  Church  of 
England,  beyond  whose  pale,  and  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
Puseyites  deny  that  there  is  any  hope  of  salvation,  and  the  Apos- 
tolic Church,  in  the  extent  of  its  bishoprics,  the  civil  power  exercised 
by  its  prelates,  the  multitude  of  its  ceremonies,  and  "  its  want,"  ac- 
cording to  its  own  acknowledgment,  "  of  a  godly  discipline,". .  .38 


8 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  IV. 

Extracts  from  the  Oxford  Tracts  asserting  the  doctrines  of  Puseyite 
Episcopacy  to  be  the  doctrines  of  Scripture. — A  contrary  opinion 
avowed  by  the  whole  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  who  were  zealous 
for  the  spiritual  improvement  of  the  Church  for  five  hundred  years 
before  the  Reformation,  by  the  whole  of  the  Protestant  Churches  at 
that  memorable  period,  and  by  eight  thousand  Protestant  ministers, 
who  subscribed  the  Articles  of  Smalkald,  which  declare  that  bishops 
are  not  superior  to  presbyters  by  divine  right. — Improbability  that 
these  distinguished  individuals  and  the  whole  Protestant  Churches 
were  wrong,  and  Puseyite  Episcopalians  right,  61 

LETTER  V. 

Presumptive  evidence  that  diocesan  bishops  have  not  been  appointed 
by  God,  because  the  only  bishops  mentioned  in  Scripture  among 
the  standing  ministers  of  the  Church  are  presbyters,  and  no  passage 
can  be  produced  specifying  the  qualifications  required  in  bishops 
as  distinct  from  presbyters. — This  inexplicable,  if  there  was  to  be 
an  order  of  ministers,  denominated  bishops,  superior  to  presbyters. 
— Presbyter,  a  name  of  higher  honour  than  bishop.  No  minister  of 
an  inferior  order  distinguished  by  the  name  of  a  minister  of  a 
superior  order. — Deacons  never  called  presbyters,  but  presbyters 
always  represented  as  bishops  — The  powers  of  ordination  and 
government  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  presbyters. — Wickliffe  held  the 
principles  of  Presbytery,  and  maintained  that  Scripture  gave  no 
countenance  to  diocesan  Episcopacy,  71 


LETTER  VI. 

Additional  evidence  that  the  principal  Reformers  of  the  Church  of 
England  rejected  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  pleaded  for 
that  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  they 
considered  it  as  better  adapted  to  absolute  monarchy. — Testi- 
monies against  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  acknowledging 
that  Presbytcrianism  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  from  the  writings 
ofTindal,  Barnes,  Lambert,  Cranmer,  Tonstall,  Stokesly,  Jewel, 
Redman,  Robertson,  George  Cranmer,  Willet,  Bedel,  and  Lord 
Digby,  85 


LETTER  VII. 

The  argument  for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  from  the  different  orders 
in  the  ministry  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  examined,  and 
proved  to  be  more  favourable  to  Popery  than  to  Prelacy. — As  far 
as  it  establishes  the  latter,  it  furnishes  a  precedent  merely  for  a 


CONTENTS. 


9 


single  bishop  in  a  nation,  with  far  more  limited  powers  than  those 
of  any  modern  bishop. — No  resemblance  between  the  powers  and 
functions  of  the  Jewish  priests  and  Levites,  and  those  of  priests  and 
deacons  in  Episcopalian  Churches. — Argument  acknowledged  to  be 
inconclusive  by  some  of  the  leading  defenders  of  Episcopacy,.  .  .93 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  argument  of  Dr.  Brett  and  Bishop  Gleig  for  diocesan  Episcopacy 
from  the  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  during  our  Lord's  minis- 
try, inconclusive. — The  Old  Testament  Church  had  not  then  ceased 
to  exist,  nor  was  the  New  Testament  Church  established. — Their 
account  of  the  ministry  which  was  instituted  at  that  time  not  sup. 
ported  by  Scripture,  contrary  to  the  representations  of  it  given  by 
the  Fathers,  and  so  far  as  it  furnishes  a  pattern  of  the  Gospel  minis- 
try, would  warrant  the  appointment  of  a  single  bishop  over  the 
Universal  Church. — Archbishop  Potter's  hypothesis  equally  unsatis- 
factory, and  would  lead  to  a  similar  conclusion,  102 


LETTER  IX. 

The  same  argument,  as  stated  by  Bishop  Bilson,  Mr.  Jones,  and 
Bishop  Skinner,  invalid. — Upon  their  hypothesis  there  would  be  no 
deacons  in  the  Church. — No  higher  powers  were  possessed  at  that 
time  by  the  Apostles  than  by  the  Seventy;  and  the  different  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  by  Archbishop  Potter,  to  prove  the  supe- 
riority of  the  former,  do  not  establish  it. — The  office  of  the  Seventy 
seems  to  have  terminated  with  their  mission,  or,  at  furthest,  at  the 
death  of  the  Saviour,  and  consequently  they  could  not  be  an  order 
in  the  Christian  Church  Ill 


LETTER  X. 

The  argument  of  Archdeacon  Daubeny  and  Bishop  Gleig,  for  the 
order  of  bishops,  from  the  extraordinary  office  assigned  to  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  New  Testament  Church,  proved  to  be  fallacious. — It  no 
more  follows  from  what  is  said  in  Matthew  xxviii.  20,  that  there 
are  to  be  Apostles  till  the  end  of  the  world,  than  from  what  is  said 
in  Ephcsians  iv.  11-13,  that  there  are  to  be  New  Testament  Pro- 
phets and  Evangelists  till  that  time. — That  office  proved  to  have 
ceased  as  to  its  peculiar  powers  with  those  who  were  first  invested 
with  it,  because  no  one  since  their  death  has  possessed  the  quali- 
fications which  it  required,  nor  has  been  called  to  it  in  the  way  in 
which  they  were  appointed,  nor  has  been  instructed  by  inspiration 
like  them  in  the  truths  which  lie  was  to  deliver,  nor  could  perform 
miracles. —  Sutelivc,  Willct,  Barrow,  and  others,  deny  that  bishops 

succeed  Apostles  in  their  peculiar  powers,  121 

1 


10 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  XI. 

As  presbyters  can  perform  the  work  of  "discipling  the  nations"  by 
preaching-  and  baptizing  till  the  end  of  the  world,  and  are  the 
highest  order  of  standing  ministers  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, they  are  entitled  to  be  considered  as  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles. — This  acknowledged  by  Willet. — The  report  that  the 
Apostles  divided  the  world  into  different  parts,  and  that  each  of 
them  laboured  in  one  of  them  as  its  bishop,  proved  to  be  fabulous, 
though  repeated  by  Bishop  Gleig. — It  cannot  be  inferred  from  the 
application  of  the  name  Apostles  by  the  Fathers  to  some  of  the 
bishops  that  the  latter  succeed  the  Apostles,  for  they  give  it  also 
to  presbyters,  and  even  females. — Refutation  of  the  argument  for 
Episcopacy  from  the  appointment  of  James  to  the  Bishopric  of 
Jerusalem. — Quotations  from  spurious  writings  of  the  Fathers,  in 
support  of  this  fiction,  by  Bishop  Gleig  and  the  present  Curate  of 
Derry  exposed,    133 


LETTER  XII. 

Bishop  Bilson  represents  the  argument  for  Episcopacy,  from  the 
powers  conferred  on  Timothy  and  Titus,  as  "the  main  erection  of 
the  Episcopal  cause  ;"  and  Bishop  Hall  declares,  that  if  it  fails,  "he 
will  yield  the  cause,  and  confess  that  he  has  lost  his  senses." — 
None  of  the  Fathers  during  the  first  three  centuries  represent  them 
as  diocesan  bishops;  and  Willet,  Stillingfleet,  and  Bishop  Bridges 
acknowledge  them  to  have  been  extraordinary  ministers,  or  Evan- 
gelists.— Nature  of  the  office  of  Evangelists,  as  illustrated  by  Scrip- 
ture and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. — Different  from  that  of  dio- 
cesan bishops,  and  superior  to  it. — Diocesan  bishops  never  said  to 
have  been  associated  with  Evangelists  or  Apostles  in  any  act  of 
jurisdiction  or  government,  though  Presbyters  repeatedly  took  part 
with  them  in  such  acts. — No  notice  of  diocesan  bishops  as  an  order 
existing  in  their  days. — The  argument  in  every  point  of  view  in- 
conclusive, 156 


LETTER  XIII. 

Examination  of  the  argument  for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  from  the 
Angels  of  the  seven  Asiatic  Churches. — Refutation  of  it  as  stated 
by  Milner,  who  would  restrict  the  superintendence  exercised  by 
bishops  to  ten  or  twelve  congregations,  a  plan  which  would  create 
in  England  a  thousand  diocesan  bishops. — Refutation  of  it  as  stated 
by  Bishop  Gleig,  who  represents  these  Angels  as  single  individuals 
and  prelates. — The  name  Angel  borrowed  from  one  of  the  ministers 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  who  had  no  authority  over  other  syna- 


CONTENTS. 


II 


gogucs,  and  was  not  the  sole  or  chief  ruler  of  his  own  synagogue. — 
Remarkable  blunder  of  Bishop  Russel  respecting  the  Angel  of  the 
synagogue  and  its  other  officers,/or  which  he  is  praised  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Sinclair. — If  the  Angels  of  the  Churches  were  single  persons, 
no  evidence  that  they  were  diocesan  bishops. — Three  arguments  to 
prove  that  they  were  not  single  individuals,  but  representatives  of 
the  whole  ministers  of  the  different  Churches,  as  each  of  the  stars 
mentioned  in  Rev.  i.  represented  the  ivhole  of  the  ministers  of  each 
of  the  Churches,  who  shed  their  united  light  on  the  members. — 
Striking  remarks  of  Lord  Bacon  on  the  unprecedented  powers 
vested  in  bishops,  and  on  their  being  allowed  to  exercise  some  of 
them,  without  any  appeal,  by  lay. chancellors,  178 


LETTER  XIV. 

Apostolical  succession. — If  the  Apostles  were  neither  diocesan  bishops 
themselves,  nor  ordained  such  bishops,  the  apostolical  succession, 
as  explained  and  claimed  by  Puseyite  Episcopalians,  never  began. — 
Waving  that  objection,  as  far  as  there  was  a  succession,  it  was  pre- 
served to  Presbyterian  Churches  before  the  Reformation,  as  unin- 
terrupted as  to  Episcopalian  Churches ;  and  since  that  time  it  has 
been  preserved  as  regularly  in  the  former,  by  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tions, as  in  the  latter  by  Episcopal. — Unfounded  allegation  by 
Spottiswood  and  others,  that  the  adoption  of  Presbytery  at  Geneva 
originated  in  a  wish  to  assimilate  the  government  of  the  Church 
that  of  the  State,  and  that  this  led  to  the  adoption  of  that  form  of 
ecclesiastical  polity  in  other  countries. — The  contrary  proved  from 
the  reasoning  of  Farcl  with  Furbiti,  who  preceded  Calvin,  and  is 
considered  by  many  as  the  modern  father  or  reviver  of  Presbytery. — 
Eusebius  acknowledges  that  he  could  not  trace  the  succession  in 
many  of  the  early  Churches. — Jewel  and  Stillingfleet  confess  that 
it  cannot  be  traced  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  from  which  many 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  have  derived  their 
orders,  190 


LETTER  XV. 

The  succession  destroyed  in  all  those  instances  in  which  individuals 
who  had  only  Presbyterian  baptism,  and  were  not  rcbaptizeri, 
joined  Episcopalian  Churches,  and  were  made  presbyters  and 
bishops. — Confirmation  cannot  remedy  this  defect,  because,  as 
Cranmer  admits,  "it  was  not  instituted  by  Christ,"  nor  was  the 
Redeemer  himself,  or  any  individual  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, confirmed,  and  because,  as  some  of  the  leading  English  Re- 
formers acknowledged,  "it  is  a  domme  ceremony,"  and  " has  no 
promise  of  grace  connected  with  it." — Butler,  who  had  only  Presby- 
terian baptism,  and  was  not  rebaptized,  made  a  bishop,  baptized 
many,  who  were  afterwards  ministers,  and  made  a  number  of 
bishops. — Seeker,  who  had  only  the  same  baptism,  made  Primate 


12 


CONTEXTS. 


of  England,  ordained  many  presbyters,  and  a  number  of  bishops, 
and  baptized  two  kings,  who  for  a  long  time  were  heads  of  the 
Church. — Tillotson,  though  the  son  of  a  Baptist,  and  though  there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  was  ever  baptized,  or  ordained  a  deacon, 
made  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. — Succession  destroyed  for  more 
than  two  hundred  years  in  the  important  Church  of  Alexandria, 
and  in  the  early  Church  of  Scotland,  in  consequence  of  the  ordina- 
tions by  the  Culdce  presbyters. — Account  of  the  presbyters  of  Iona, 
their  evangelical  doctrine,  their  Presbyterian  government,  and  the 
acknowledgment  of  their  ecclesiastical  authority  by  the  Clergy  of 
Scotland  216 


LETTER  XVI. 

The  succession  destroyed  in  the  early  Church  of  England,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  ordination  of  its  first  bishops  by  Scottish  presbyters. — 
Scottish  missionaries  who  were  ordained  by  presbyters,  acknowledg- 
ed by  Usher  to  have  Christianized  the  greater  part  of  England. — 
The  Presbyterian  Culdean  Scottish  Church  asserted  in  the  twelfth 
century,  before  an  assembly  of  English  bishops  and  nobles,  to  be  the 
Mother  Church  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  not  contradicted. — 
An  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  that  century  never  consecrated, 
and  a  Bishop  of  Norwich  consecrated  by  a  presbyter  who  was  an 
archdeacon. — Succession  destroyed  in  the  Church  of  Ireland 
through  the  ordination  of  many  of  its  clergy  by  the  Scottish 
Culdee  presbyters. — Eight  individuals  who  never  had  any  orders, 
Archbishops  of  Armagh,  and  Primates  of  all  Ireland. — Succession 
destroyed  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  who,  according  to  Dr. 
Pusey,  are  not  a  Christian  Church. — Their  first  prelates  in  1610 
never  baptized,  and  their  orders  irregular. — The  orders  of  their 
next  bishops  in  1661  uncanonical,  and  those  of  the  usage  bishops, 
from  whom  their  present  bishops  derive  their  orders,  pronounced 
by  the  college  bishops  in  1727  to  be  null  and  void,  246 


LETTER  XVII. 

The  Church  of  Denmark,  as  its  first  superintendents  were  only  pres- 
byters, and  after  the  Reformation  received  imposition  of  hands  only 
from  Bugenhagen,  a  single  Lutheran  presbyter,  without  the  sue- 
cession,  and  upon  the  principles  of  Dr.  Pusey,  not  a  Christian 
Church. — The  same,  too,  the  condition  of  the  Church  of  Sweden, 
and  of  all  the  foreign  Protestant  Churches  which  have  only  super- 
intendents.— Superintendents  both  among  Lutherans  and  Calvin- 
ists,  when  appointed  to  their  office  not  ordained  anew,  but  appointed 
merely  the  chairmen  or  moderators  of  presbyters,  by  whom  they 
may  be  deposed. — Their  Churches,  of  course,  not  Christian  Church- 
es.— Account  of  the  ancient  Scottish  superintendents,  whose  office 
is  misrepresented  by  Episcopalians. — The  Church  of  Prussia  not  a 
Church,  nor  the  Protestant  Churches  of  France,  Geneva,  Switzer- 
land, Holland,  America  and  Scotland. — The  Presbyterians  in  Ire- 


CONTENTS. 


13 


land  and  Great  Britain,  with  the  Methodists  and  Independents,  not 
phurches,  and  their  members  without  any  covenanted  title  to  salva- 
tion.— The  succession  destroyed  in  the  Church  of  Rome. — Pagans 
baptized  some  who  became  ministers — laymen  ordained  to  be 
bishops — bishops  often  ordained  to  Sees  which  were  not  vacant. — 
This  the  case  with  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  272 


LETTER  XVIII. 

Additional  evidence  that  the  succession  has  been  lost  in  the  Church 
of  Rome. — Boys  ordained  to  be  Bishops,  and  striplings  made 
Popes. — Atheists  and  avowed  infidels  raised  to  the  Popedom. — 
Papal  canon,  that  "if  a  Pope  should  carry  with  him  innumerable 
souls  to  hell,  no  man  must  presume  to  find  fault  with  him." — 
Simoniacal  ordinations  declared  void  by  the  canons  of  many  Coun- 
cils, and  yet  for  eight  hundred  years  there  were  many  such  ordina- 
tions, both  in  the  Western  and  Eastern  Churches. — Idiots,  and  per- 
sons, "who,  when  they  read,  prayed,  or  sang,  knew  not  whether 
they  blessed  God  or  blasphemed  him,"  ordained  to  be  bishops. — 
Multitudes  of  the  most  immoral  individuals,  some  of  whom  "  drank 
wine  in  honour  of  the  devil,"  made  Popes  and  Bishops,  286 


LETTER  XIX. 

The  Bible  the  only  standard  by  which  we  are  to  regulate  our  opinions 
respecting  faith  and  practice,  the  orders  in  the  ministry,  and  the 
rites  and  ordinances  of  the  Christian  Church. — This  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  itself,  and  of  the  early  Fathers,  each  of  whom  rejected 
the  opinions  of  the  other  Fathers  on  every  subject  when  not  sup- 
ported by  Scripture,  or  contrary  to  its  statements. — This  the  doc- 
trine, too,  of  Luther,  and  of  the  most  eminent  Reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England. — The  Fathers  not  safe  guides  respecting  the 
meaning  of  Scripture  on  other  subjects  besides  Church  govern- 
ment.— Numerous  instances  of  the  gross  misinterpretation  of  the 
plainest  passages  in  the  writings  of  Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr, 
Irenaeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  and 
Jerome. — Numerous  instances  abo  of  their  departing  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles  on  some  of  the  leading  points  of  evangeli- 
cal belief,  and  of  their  introducing  into  the  Church  superstitious 
rites  and  idolatrous  observances. — This  acknowledged  by  Whitgift 
and  Cox. — Presumptive  proof  which  it  presents  that  they  might 
depart  as  far  from  the  original  form  of  ecclesiastical  government 
which  was  appointed  for  the  Church,  305 


LETTER  XX. 

Extraordinary  opinion  of  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  that  the  Scriptures, 
though  a  rule  of  faith,  are  not  a  rule  of  discipline  and  practice,  and 
that  the  latter  is  to  be  found  in  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  along 
with  the  Scriptures. — This  an  impeachment  of  the  perfection  of 


L4 


CONTENTS. 


the  Scriptures  in  opposition  to  their  own  explicit  statements,  and  a 
mean  of  virtually  adding  to  the  institutions  which  they  prescribe  to 
the  Church,  in  opposition  to  their  express  and  solemn  warnings. — 
The  traditions  of  the  Fathers  not  a  safe  guide,  because  those  who 
deliver  them  were  weak,  inexperienced,  and  fallible  men,  though 
they  lived  near  to  the  Apostles ;  and  if  the  Scriptures,  which  were 
written  by  men  who  were  inspired,  are  not  sufficient  to  direct  us, 
we  can  have  no  assurance  that  when  we  are  following  these  tradi- 
tions we  arc  not  embracing  error. — As  much  danger  of  our  doing 
this,  and  of  our  making  void  the  institutions  of  Christ,  by  our  not 
trusting  in  the  Scriptures  exclusively,  but  adopting  what  is  recom- 
mended by  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  as  there  was  to  the  Jews 
of  making  void  the  law  of  God  by  following  the  traditions  of  the 
elders,  because  they  lived  near  to  the  prophets,  instead  of  trusting 
exclusively  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets. — Eusebius  and  So- 
crates condemn  some  of  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  and  others 
of  them  such  as  even  Puscyites  would  reject,  324 


LETTER  XXI. 

If  the  reasoning  employed  in  the  two  preceding  letters  be  well  founded, 
it  will  not  follow  that  diocesan  Episcopacy  received  the  approbation 
of  the  Apostles,  though  it  could  be  proved  that  it  existed  in  the  age 
next  to  the  apostolic,  unless  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  they  had 
expressed  their  approbation  of  it  in  their  writings  ;  but  it  cannot  be 
proved  that  it  existed  in  that  early  age. — The  mere  catalogues  of 
bishops,  to  which  Episcopalians  appeal,  will  not  establish  this,  un- 
less they  can  show  that  these  bishops  had  the  same  powers  which 
belong  exclusively  to  their  prelates. — This,  however,  they  have 
never  yet  done ;  and  Jerome  declares,  that  even  toward  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century  the  power  of  ordination  alone  distinguished  a 
bishop  from  a  presbyter. — In  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  and  his 
Epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  represents  bishops  and  presbyters  as  the 
same,  not  only  in  name,  but  in  authority,  and  diocesan  Episcopacy 
as  a  mere  human  institution,  introduced  by  the  Church  to  prevent 
schism. — He  describes  it  farther  as  adopted  by  degrees,  as  divisions 
arose  in  different  Churches  or  nations,  by  a  decree  of  each  of  the 
Churches,  and  not  of  any  general  council ;  and  as  having  com- 
menced, not  at  the  time  of  the  schism  in  the  Church  of  Corinth, 
referred  to  by  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  that  Church,  but  after  the 
writing  of  the  third  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  death  of  the  Apostles. 
— This  represented  as  the  opinion  of  Jerome,  as  stated  in  his  writ- 
ings, by  Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  and  the  most  eminent  foreign 
Reformers,  by  the  Wirtemburg  Confession  and  the  Articles  of 
Smalkald,  and  by  Jewel,  Willet,  Whitaker,  and  many  other  learned 
and  distinguished  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  339 

LETTER  XXII. 

While  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  settled  by  the  Apostles,  is 
acknowledged  by  Jerome  to  have  been  Presbyterian,  he  seems  to 


CONTENTS. 


15 


have  approved  of  a  modified  Episcopacy  as  a  human  arrangement 
for  the  prevention  of  schism. — This  remedy  acknowledged  by  Gra- 
tius  to  have  increased,  in  place  of  repressing  the  evil. — Invalidity 
of  the  objection  to  Presbyterian  principles,  that  they  were  held  by 
Arius,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  inasmuch,  as  though  he 
might  err  on  the  latter  point,  it  would  not  follow  that  he  erred  on 
every  other  ;  for  he  agreed  in  many  things  with  Episcopalians, 
and  especially  with  those  of  them  who  condemn  prayers  for  the 
dead. — Hilary,  Augustine  and  Chrysostom  admit  the  identity  of 
presbyters  and  bishops. — Clemens  Romanus  mentions  only  two 
orders  of  ministers,  and  never  refers  to  diocesan  bishops. — No  re- 
ference to  them  in  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp. — The  short  Epistles  of 
Ignatius  proved  to  be  corrupted,  so  that  no  dependence  can  be 
placed  on  their  statements  respecting  the  orders  in  the  ministry ; 
and  even  admitting  them  to  be  genuine,  no  such  powers  are 
ascribed  in  them  to  bishops  as  are  possessed  by  modern  diocesan 
bishops,  363 


LETTER  XXIII. 

No  allusion  to  the  powers  of  diocesan  bishops  in  the  writings  of  Her- 
mas. — Nor  any  notice  of  such  ministers,  or  of  the  sign  of  the  cross 
in  baptism,  or  of  confirmation,  by  Justin  Martyr. — No  reference  to 
them  by  Irenaeus,  who  speaks  of  the  ministers  who  maintained  a 
succession  of  sound  doctrine  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
different  Churches,  alternately  as  presbyters  and  bishops. — The 
Churches  of  Gaul  describe  him  as  a  presbyter,  nine  years  after  he 
was  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  Epistle  which  they  sent  with  him  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  considering  it  as  the  most  honourable  name  which 
they  could  give  him. — Irenaeus  represents  Polycarp  as  a  presby- 
ter.— No  such  powers  as  those  of  diocesan  bishops  ascribed  to 
bishops  in  the  writings  of  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  or  Tcrtullian,  or 
Origen. — Examination  of  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  whose  language 
respecting  the  dignity  of  bishops  is  frequently  extravagant. — Proofs 
of  his  erring  grievously  on  other  subjects,  so  that  it  would  not  be 
wonderful  if  he  had  erred  also  on  this. — Evidence,  however,  even 
from  his  Epistles  and  other  writings  of  the  early  Christians,  that 
presbyters,  botli  in  his  day,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  could  not 
only  ordain,  but  sit  in  councils  and  even  preside  in  them. — Pas- 
sages in  Cyprian's  writings,  which  furnish  more  plausible  argu- 
ments, not  only  for  bishops,  but  for  a  Pope,  than  any  which  are  to 
be  found  in  the  preceding  Fathers,  389 


LETTER  XXIV. 

Reply  to  the  argument  for  Episcopacy,  that  there  was  always  impa- 
rity among  the  orders  in  the  ministry  under  the  preceding  dispen- 
sations, and  there  ought  still  to  be  imparity  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment Dispensation. — This  proved  to  be  a  begging  of  the  question, 
and  that  we  must  learn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves  whether 


16 


CONTENTS. 


imparity  was  to  continue  among  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel. — Dr. 
Raynolds  acknowledges,  that  "  those  who  had  been  most  zealous  for 
the  Reformation  of  the  Church  for  five  hundred  years  before  that 
event,"  did  not  believe  in  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy. — 
Dr.  Raynolds  and  Hooker  admit  this  to  have  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  Waldensian  Churches,  and  of  Huss  and  his  followers,  who  had 
no  minister  superior  to  presbyters. — This  proved  to  be  the  highest 
order  of  their  ministers  by  the  testimony  of  their  own  pastors,  and 
other  authorities. — Calvin  and  Beza,  according  to  Dr.  Raynolds, 
Hooker,  and  Hcylin,  denied  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  this 
confirmed  by  their  writings. — The  rest  of  the  leading  foreign  Re- 
formers rejected  it,  though  Mclancthon  would  have  submitted  to 
bishops,  and  even  a  Pope,  for  the  sake  of  peace. — Zanchius  unfairly 
claimed  by  Episcopalians  as  approving  of  the  powers  possessed  by 
their  bishops. — The  foreign  Protestant  Churches  without  bishops, 
not  from  necessity,  as  Episcopalians  allege,  but  from  principle. — 
This  proved  by  Jeremy  Taylor  412 


LETTERS 

ON 

PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


LETTER  I. 

Ungenerous  and  unprovoked  attack  by  Puseyite  Episcopalians  on  Presby' 
terian  Churches.  Alarming  view  presented  by  the  former,  of  the  spirit- 
ual condition  of  the  latter.  Necessity  imposed  on  Presbyterians  to  defend 
their  principles. 

Reverend  Sir, — You  cannot  feel  surprised,  that,  as 
a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  I  should  ad- 
dress you  on  a  subject  of  paramount  importance  to 
Presbyterians  in  general,  and  especially  to  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  namely,  the  validity  of  our 
orders,  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  as  we  adminis- 
ter them  to  our  people,  and  the  covenanted  title  of  the 
pious  individuals  who  belong  to  our  communion  to 
the  blessings  of  salvation.  You  concede  the  charac- 
ter of  a  true  Church  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  though 
it  is  stated  in  your  homilies,  that,  "  for  the  space  of 
nine  hundred  years,  it  has  been  so  far  aside  from  the 
nature  of  the  true  Church,  that  nothing  can  be  more;" 
and  yet  you  deny  it  to  us  and  our  Presbyterian  breth- 
ren. And  the  least  offensive  terms  in  which  you  are 
accustomed  to  speak  of  us,  are  like  those  employed 
by  the  late  Archbishop  Magee,  when  he  said  of  us, 
as  compared  to  the  Papists,  that,  "  while  they  had  a 
church  without  a  religion,  we  had  a  religion  without 
a  Church." 

I  have  waited  with  anxiety  to  see  whether  these 
charges  would  be  repelled  by  any  of  your  leading 


IS 


LETTERS  ON 


dignitaries,  and  whether  they  would  speak  of  us  in 
the  same  terms  of  brotherly  kindness  in  which  Cran- 
mer  spake  of  Knox,  when  he  recommended  him  to  be 
one  of  King  Edward's  preachers,  for  spreading  the 
true  religion  in  England:  or  in  which  Parker,  Grindal, 
Whitgift,  and  Hooker  spake  of  the  orthodox  Presby- 
terian Churches  in  their  day;  or  whether  they  would 
evince  the  same  spirit  which  was  displayed  by  Bishop 
Hall,  Dr.  Carlton,  and  Dr.  Ward,  when  they  sat  as 
the  representatives  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  of  which  the  president  was  a  Presby- 
terian, and  the  majority  of  the  members  were  minis- 
ters and  elders  of  Presbyterian  Churches.  But  I  have 
unhappily  been  disappointed;  and  while  no  friendly 
voice  has  been  raised  on  our  behalf  by  any  of  your 
bishops  or  your  superior  clergy,  we  continue  to  be  de- 
nounced as  destitute  of  any  right  to  the  honourable 
character  of  Christian  ministers,  because  we  have  not 
derived  our  orders  from  diocesan  bishops,  who  were 
regularly  baptized,  and  received  their  orders  from 
other  bishops,  in  an  unbroken  succession  from  the 
Apostles.  Our  Churches  are  asserted  to  be  unworthy 
of  the  name;  our  sacraments  are  represented  as  with- 
out virtue,  and  our  people  as  only  "  midway"  between 
the  favoured  members  of  Episcopalian  Churches,  "and 
the  heathen,  who  are  without  God,  without  Christ, 
and  without  hope  in  the  world."  And  on  a  recent 
occasion,  when  our  title  to  the  very  name  of  a  Chris- 
tian Church  was  directly  questioned  in  the  committee 
of  the  Society  for  propagating  Christian  Knowledge, 
neither  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  nor  the  Bishop 
of  London,  though  among  the  most  moderate  of  your 
prelates,  said  a  word  in  support  of  it,  but  instructed 
their  friends  merely  to  move  the  previous  question. 
You  will  not  then  think  it  strange,  that  when  no  one 
else  will  undertake  our  defence,  we  should  attempt  it 
ourselves;  and  while  we  acknowledge  willingly  your 
National  Church  to  be  a  Church  of  Christ,  should  state 
he  grounds  on  which  we  claim  that  character  to  our 
own  Church,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  orthodox  Presby- 
terian Churches,  which,  though  they  have  not  dioce- 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


IS 


san,  possess,  we  are  persuaded,  scriptural  bishops,  and 
enjoy  as  full}''  as  any  churches  the  means  of  salvation. 

I  am  aware,  that  if  you  were  able  to  establish  your 
position,  it  would  be  attended  by  the  most  serious 
and  alarming  consequences  to  the  great  majority  of 
the  Protestant  Churches;  and  that  they  could  not  too 
soon  either  enter  your  communion,  or  apply  to  your 
Church  to  furnish  them  with  bishops;  for  the  only 
alternative,  as  far  as  is  revealed  in  Scripture,  would 
be  diocesan  Episcopacy,  or  perdition.  How  melan- 
choly would  be  the  feelings  which  it  would  awaken 
in  our  breasts,  respecting  the  numerous  Presbyterians 
who  lived  in  England  in  former  times,  whose  Calamys, 
Pooles,  Howes,  Henrys,  Wattses,  and  Doddridges 
could  no  longer  be  regarded  as  Christian  ministers, 
nor  the  most  pious  individuals  who  were  connected 
with  their  churches,  as  having  had  any  well  founded 
hope  of  future  happiness,  as  well  as  respecting  the 
whole  of  the  learned  and  excellent  individuals  among 
Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Independents,  and  Baptists 
in  the  present  day.  How  affecting  would  be  the  state 
of  the  sainted  martyrs  of  the  Scottish  Church  in  former 
ages,  and  of  her  Chalmerses,  Gordons,  and  other  dis- 
tinguished clergy,  and  of  her  pious  people  at  the  pre- 
sent time ;  as  well  as  of  the  ministers  and  members 
of  our  Dissenting  Churches,  all  of  whom  would  be 
labouring  under  a  fearful  delusion,  as  to  the  validity 
of  their  orders,  and  the  efficacy  of  their  privileges;  and 
who  would  not  only  be  living  without  the  means  of 
grace,  but  without  the  smallest  prospect,  from  aught 
that  is  revealed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  of  their  being 
received  when  they  die  into  the  abodes  of  blessedness! 
How  painful  would  be  the  condition  of  the  Presby- 
terians in  Ireland,  the  effects  of  whose  labours  for 
the  religious  and  moral  regeneration  of  their  country, 
especially  in  Ulster,  will  bear  to  be  compared  with 
those  of  the  clergy,  who  received  their  orders  from 
diocesan  bishops,  in  any  district  of  England,  but 
whose  Blairs,  and  Livingstons,*  and  Lelands,  and 

•  Blair  and  Livingston,  with  other  eminent  ministers  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  laboured  for  a  considerable  time  in  Ireland. 


20 


LETTERS  ON  PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


Plunkets,*  of  former  times,  as  well  as  their  Cookes, 
Hannahs,  Stewarts,  and  Edgars  in  the  present  day, 
cannot  he  recognised  as  Christian  ministers;  nor  can 
the  members  of  their  churches  have  any  thing  better 
to  trust  in  at  last,  than  God's  uncovenanted  mercy. 
And  how  dismal  would  be  the  state  of  the  Presbyte- 
rians in  France,  who  amounted,  at  one  time,  to  a  third 
part  of  the  nation,  and  who  numbered  among  their 
clergy,  Daille,  La  Roque,  du  Moulin,  and  Blonde], 
and  among  the  members  of  their  communion,  Marga- 
ret of  Navarre,  several  princes  of  the  blood,  Coligny, 
du  Plessis,  and  other  distinguished  individuals;  and 
of  the  churches  of  Geneva,  Switzerland,  Holland,  and 
the  North  American  States,  as  well  as  of  the  Luther- 
ans on  the  Continent,  who  have  only  superintendents, 
and  not  diocesan  bishops.  Surely  an  opinion  which 
leads  to  such  consequences,  and  which  unchristianizes 
at  once  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  takes  from  them 
all  covenanted  hopes  of  salvation,  would  require  to 
he  sustained  by  the  most  convincing  reasoning;  and 
it  must  be  due  at  once  to  the  memory  of  the  one,  and 
to  the  comfort  of  the  other,  to  examine  the  evidence 
on  which  you  maintain  your  position.  I  remain, 
Reverend  sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  The  father  of  Lord  Plunket,  the  late  Lord  Chancellor  of  Ireland, 
was  a  Presbyterian  clergyman.  See  Philip's  Specimens  of  Irish 
Eloquence,  p.  357.  And  Lord  Campbell,  who  succeeded  him,  was 
the  son  of  a  Scottish  Presbyterian  minister,  and  had  only  Presbyte- 
rian baptism  ;  so  that  both  these  Judges,  though  keepers  of  the  con- 
science of  the  Sovereign,  according  to  Dr.  Puscy  and  Mr.  Gladstone, 
could  not  be  Christians,  or  have  any  hope  of  salvation. 


21 


LETTER  II. 

Exclusive  claims  of  Puseyite  Episcopalians  to  the  Christian  ministry,  by  no 
means  of  recent  origin. — Saravia  not  the  author  of  them,  but  Laud. — 
Account  of  the  principal  individuals  in  the  Church  of  England  who  have 
brought  them  forward  at  different  periods,  when  they  considered  her  to 
be  in  danger. — Their  doctrines  proved  to  be  contrary  to  her  principles, 
from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the  writings  of  the  bishops  who  composed 
her  Formularies,  and  their  immediate  successors,  their  conduct  towards 
Presbyterian  Churches,  the  charter  granted  hy  Edward  the  Sixth  to  these 
Churches  in  London,  and  the  establishment  of  Presbytery  by  Elizabeth  in 
Jersey  and  Guernsey. 

Reverend  Sir, — I  am  aware  that  your  views  of  the 
spiritual  condition  of  Presbyterian  Churches,  though 
startling  to  those  who  never  heard  them  before,  are 
by  no  means  new.  As  Papists  are  accustomed  to 
deny  to  your  Church  the  name  of  a  Church,  and  ad- 
dress the  most  alarming  statements  to  her  members, 
to  induce  them,  if  possible,  to  join  their  communion; 
so  some  of  her  more  violent  and  indiscreet  defenders 
have,  at  different  periods,  imitated  their  example,  and 
attempted  to  terrify  the  Presbyterians  of  their  day  to 
enter  within  her  pale,  telling  them  that  yours  was 
the  only  Protestant  Church  in  our  native  country, 
the  ministers  of  which  have  authority  from  Christ  to 
preach  the  Gospel  and  administer  the  sacraments,  and 
in  which  they  can  attain  any  covenanted  title  to  sal- 
vation. If  we  may  judge,  however,  of  the  measure 
of  success  which  will  attend  your  labours  from  the 
amount  of  theirs,  it  will  be  small  indeed;  and  you 
will  be  far  more  likely  to  add  to  the  converts  to  the 
Church  of  Rome  from  the  Church  of  England,  than  to 
diocesan  Episcopacy  from  the  Presbyterian  Churches. 
I  lament  to  hear  that  the  former  has  been  the  case  to 
an  appalling  extent,  and  that  there  is  reason  to  fear 
it  will  rapidly  increase;  for,  as  O'Connell  remarked 
with  great  exultation,  in  a  recent  debate  in  the  British 
Parliament,  "  you  and  your  followers  are  on  your 
way  to  Rome."*    And  I  am  firmly  persuaded,  that 

*  How  much  is  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Pusey,  as  well  as  his  writings, 
fitted  to  promote  this  painful  result,  when,  as  he  acknowledges,  he 


22 


LETTERS  ON 


if  sentiments  like  yours  continue  to  spread  among  the 
clergy  of  your  Church,  and  are  propounded  as  openly, 
and  if  not  the  smallest  cognisance  of  them  in  the  way 
of  censure  is  taken  by  your  bishops,  and  if  some  who 
maintain  them,  as  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Hook,  are  even 
promoted  to  new  ecclesiastical  honours,  it  may  injure 
her  materially,  in  the  estimation  of  a  number  of  her 
most  pious  members,  and  may  constrain  them  in  a 
short  time  to  leave  her  communion. 

The  first  person  in  your  Church,  according  to  Voe- 
tius,*  who  avowed  your  opinion,  was  Adrian  Sara- 
via,  who  was  at  one  time  a  pastor  of  the  Flemish 
Church,  but  became  a  convert  to  Episcopacy,  and 
who,  in  a  treatise  which  he  published  on  degrees  in 
the  ministry,  applied  the  same  language  to  his  former 
brethren,  which  is  applied  to  your  clergy,  in  common 
with  the  ministers  of  all  other  Protestant  Churches, 
by  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  but  fair,  however,  to 
acknowledge,  that  this  statement  is  controverted  by 
Archbishop  Whitgift,  who  says  in  a  letter  to  Beza, 
that  "  his  (Saravia's)  purpose  was  wholly  undertaken 
without  the  injury  or  prejudice  of  any  particular 
Church,  and  was  designed  merely  to  prove  that  it 
was  agreeable  to  Scripture,  and  should  be  adopted  in 
England."!  And  this  exposition  of  his  sentiments 
seems  to  be  confirmed  by  what  is  said  by  Saravia 
himself,  who  declares,  in  his  answer  to  Beza,  that  he 
"  admitted  and  excused  what  was  done  by  the  rest  of 
the  Reformed  Churches,  in  regard  to  their  polity,  and 
did  not  blame  or  condemn  them."} 

fell  on  his  knees  lately  at  the  elevation  of  the  Host  in  a  Popish  chapel 
in  Dublin.  He  says,  indeed,  that  he  did  not  worship  the  consecrated 
wafer,  but  was  desirous  only  to  show  his  respect  for  it.  How  he 
can  reconcile  this  with  his  remaining  a  minister  of  the  Church  of 
England,  whose  homilies  speak  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  lan- 
guage quoted  p.  17,  or  with  the  apostolic  admonition,  that  "  we  should 
abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil,  and  do  nothing  to  hurt  the  con- 
science of  a  weak  brother,"  I  cannot  comprehend. 

*  Politiae  Ecclesiastical,  pars  secunda,  p.  837.  See,  too,  Discourse 
on  the  Union  between  Scotland  and  England,  p.  137. 

t  Strype's  Life  of  Whitgift,  pp.  409—424. 

t  "  Factum  Ecclesiarum  Reformatarum  accipio  et  excuso,  non  in- 
cuso  nec  exprobro."  In  his  letter  published  by  Strype,  (Life  of  Whit- 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


23 


But  though  he  did  not  adopt,  to  their  full  extent, 
your  intolerant  views,  they  were  embraced  in  part  by 
a  few  of  his  cotemporaries,  who,  according  to  Sadeel, 
an  early  Reformer,  contended  for  the  necessity  of 
Episcopal  ordination,  while  they  acknowledged  the 
foreign  "  Reformed  Churches  to  be  true  Churches  of 
Christ."*  They  were  avowed,  however,  without  any 
limitation,  by  Archbishop  Laud,  who,  as  far  as  I  can 
discover,  was  the  first  individual  in  the  Church  of 
England  that  maintained  them  openly,  and  who, 
according  to  Queen  Henrietta,  "  had  the  heart  of  a 
good  Catholic."t  And  though  you  have  lately  rob- 
bed him  of  the  honour  of  giving  a  name  to  the  party 
who  profess  his  sentiments,  and  who  are  now  deno- 
minated Puseyites,you  ought  certainly  to  resign  it,  for 
you,  Dr.  Hook,  Mr.  Newman,  and  Mr.  Gladstone,  are 
only  his  followers.  "In  July  1604,"  says  Prynne, 
"  hee  proceeded  batchelour  in  divinitie.  His  suppo- 
sition, when  he  answered  in  the  divinity  schooles  for 
his  degree,  concerning  the  erncacie  of  baptisme,  was 
taken  verbatim  out  of  Bellarmine,  and  hee  then 
maintained  there  could  bee  no  true  Church  without 

gift,)  p.  424,  he  says  of  Presbytery,  which  he  calls  "  a  new  mode  of 
governing  the  Church,"  "  that  it  was  to  he  borne  with  till  another 
that  was  better  could  be  obtained." 

*  "  Veras  Ecclesias  Christi,"  Treatise  de  Legitima  Ordinatione 
Ministrorum,  p.  542,  of  his  works,  tie  represents  Dr.  Pusey's  doc- 
trine as  held  at  that  time  to  its  full  extent  only  by  Papists,  and  reject- 
ed by  the  whole  of  the  Reformers. 

t  It  is  remarkable  that  even  Heylin,  though  an  admirer  of  the 
Archbishop,  and  a  fierce  Anti-Calvinist,  says  in  his  life  of  Laud,  p. 
252,  in  reference  to  the  changes  in  favour  of  Popery,  which  took 
place  under  his  primacy,  "  The  doctrines  are  altered  in  many  things; 
as  for  example,  the  Pope  not  Antichrist,  pictures,  free  will,  &c.  the 
thirty-nine  articles  seeming  patient  if  not  ambitious  of  some  Catho- 
lic sensn."  What  a  faithful  representation  of  the  interpretation 
given  of  them  in  the  present  day,  as  to  many  things,  by  Dr.  Pusey, 
Archdeacon  Wilberforcc,  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  many  others. 

As  far  as  relates  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Articles  on  the  leading 
points  of  evangelical  belief,  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Carlton  is  deci- 
sive. "  I  am  well  assured,"  says  he,  in  his  Examination  of  Mon- 
tague, p.  49,  "  that  the  learned  bishops  who  were  in  the  Reformation 
of  the  Church,  in  the  beginning  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  did  so 
much  honour  St.  Augustine,  that,  in  the  collecting  of  the  articles  and 
homilies,  and  other  things  in  that  Reformation,  they  had  an  especial 
respect  unto  St.  Augustine's  doctrines.'''' 


24 


LETTERS  ON 


diocesan  bishops,  for  which  Dr.  Holland  (then  Doc- 
tor of  the  chaire)  openly  reprehended  him  in  the 
schooles  for  a  seditious  person,  who  would  unchurch 
the  Reformed  Churches  beyond  the  seas,  and  sow  a 
division  between  us  and  them  who  were  brethren,  by 
this  novell  Popish  doctrine."*  And  when  he  was 
elevated  to  the  primacy,  he  censured  Bishop  Hall  for 
admitting  that  the  foreign  Protestant  Churches  were 
Churches  of  Christ;  "  a  concession,"  he  affirmed,  (and 
you  and  Mr.  Gladstone  1  have  no  doubt  will  agree 
with  him,)  "  which  was  more  than  the  cause,  of  Epis- 
copacy would  well  bear."t  It  was  the  doctrine  of 
Bishop  Montague,  who  was  at  one  time  Archbishop 
Laud's  chaplain,  for  he  asserts  expressly  that  "  ordi- 
nation by  Episcopal  hands  is  so  necessary,  as  that  the 
Church  is  no  true  Church  without  it,  and  the  ministry 
no  true  ministry,  and  ordinarily  no  salvation  to  be 
obtained  without  \t."X  It  was  the  opinion  of  Durel, 
Beveridge  and  others,  in  the  end  of  that  century,  for 
we  are  told  by  the  younger  Spanheim,  who  had 
laboured  without  success  to  reconcile  them  and  the 
Presbyterians,  that  "  he  was  little  solicitous"  about 
what  they  thought  of  a  proposal  which  he  had  made 
to  them  for  that  purpose,  "  because  to  such  a  degree 
of  perverseness  had  matters  been  carried  by  some  of 
them,  that  they  declared  that  out  of  the  Episcopal 
communion  there  was  no  ordination,  nor  ministry, 
nor  sacraments,  nor  Church,  nor  faith,  nor  salva- 
tion.'^ It  was  held  by  Dr.  Hickes,  who  used  the  fol- 
lowing extraordinary  language  respecting  the  Church 
of  Scotland:  "Such  a  Church  I  think  altogether  as 
unworthy  of  the  name  of  a  Church,  as  a  band  of 
rebels  in  any  country,  who  have  overthrown  the  con- 
stitution of  it,  would  be  of  the  name  of  a  kingdom, 
state,  or  republic,  because  such  a  pretended  Church 

*  Prynne's  Breviate  of  his  Life,  p.  2. 
t  Breviate,  p.  399. 

t  Montague's  Origines  Ecclesiastical,  p.  463 — 464. 

§  "  Seu  jam  Hierarchies  ha?c  conditio  probaretur,  seu  minus, 
Spanhemius  scapham,  scapharn  dixit,  parum  sollicitus  quid  Monta- 
cutius,  quid  Durellus,  quid  Bcveregius,"  &c.  Letter  against  Van 
der  Way  en,  p.  110,  note. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


25 


is  not  only  a  variation  from  the  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church,  but  a  sworn  destructive  confederacy  against 
it,  even  the  abomination  of  desolation  in  the  house  or 
kingdom  of  God,  of  which  their  pastors  are  not  minis- 
ters, but  most  malicious  enemies, — not  pastors,  but 
wolves  of  the  flock."*  And  without  dwelling  on  the 
names  of  Law  or  Dodwell,  in  regard  to  the  last  of 
whom,  it  is  surprising  that  Bishop  Burnet  should 
have  erred  so  egregiously,  as  to  say  that  it  was  he 
who  gave  rise  to  this  conceit,"t  I  may  briefly  notice, 
that  it  was  maintained  by  Mr.  Jones,  the  projector 
and  patron  of  the  British  Critic,  who  affirms,  that  it 
was  as  impossible  for  any  one  to  be  saved  out  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  from  future  wo,  as  it  would  have 
been  for  Noah  and  his  family  to  have  been  saved 
from  the  deluge  out  of  the  ark.  And  it  was  strenu- 
ously defended  by  the  late  Archdeacon  Daubeny  in 
his  Guide  to  the  Church,  who,  in  1803,  gave  a 
remarkable  proof  of  his  adherence  to  your  principles, 
for  he  refused  to  obey  the  orders  of  his  primate  to 
read  a  prayer  on  the  national  fast,  because  it  recog- 
nised as  true  Churches  the  different  Presbyterian 
Churches,  in  which  act  of  contumacy  he  was  follow- 
ed, I  believe,  by  his  colleague,  Dr.  Spry.J  It  is  pos- 
sible, however,  that  Archbishop  Laud  and  you,  with 
Mr.  Percival,  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  others  of  your  fol- 
lowers, may  be  right,  and  more  liberal  Episcopalians 
may  be  greatly  in  the  wrong,  and  you  may  be  acting 
under  the  influence  of  the  truest  kindness  when  you 
tell  us,  that  as  our  ministers  did  not  receive  their 

*  Preface  to  his  Treatise  on  the  Priesthood  and  the  Dignity  of  the 
Episcopal  Order,  p.  200.  In  the  same  spirit,  Wetmore,  in  his  Vindi- 
cation of  the  Professors  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Connecticut,  pp. 
2'J — 30,  describes  Presbyterian  Churches  as  resembling,  "  in  the 
mystical  body  of  Christ,  excrescences  or  tumours  in  the  body  natural, 
or  perhaps  as  fungosities  in  an  ulcerated  tumour,  the  caling  away 
of  which  by  whatever  means  tends  not  to  the  hurt,  but  to  the  sound- 
ness and  health  of  the  body." 

t  History  of  his  own  Times,  vol.  ii.  p.  603. 

t  With  a  strange  inconsistency,  he  acknowledged,  at  the  same 
time,  as  Christian  ministers  some  foreign  missionaries,  who  had  only 
Lutheran  orders.  "  The  legs  of  the  lame,"  as  Solomon  remarks, 
"  are  not  equal." 


26 


LETTERS  ON 


orders  from  diocesan  bishops,  regularly  baptized  and 
ordained  in  an  unbroken  series  from  the  Apostles, 
they  cannot  be  considered  as  Christian  pastors,  nor  can 
their  ministrations  have  any  efficacy,  nor  can  our  peo- 
ple have  any  covenanted  title  to  salvation. 

Now,  the  first  observation  which  I  have  to  offer  on 
this  doctrine  is,  that  whether  it  is  true  or  false,  it  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England. 

The  best  way  to  ascertain  the  doctrine  of  a  Church 
on  any  subject,  is  to  examine  what  is  said  on  it  in  her 
public  formularies,  in  the  writings  of  the  individuals 
by  whom  they  were  drawn  up,  and  of  those  who  suc- 
ceeded them,  and  the  course  she  pursued  during  the 
best  and  purest  period  of  her  history,  when  she  acted 
honestly  in  accordance  with  her  principles.  Now,  if  we 
try  your  opinion  by  any  of  these  tests,  it  appears  to  me 
to  be  destitute  of  the  least  semblance  of  support,  and  to 
be  directly  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  your  Church 
respecting  other  Protestant  Churches.  The  only  things 
essential  to  a  Christian  Church,  according  to  your  19th 
Article,  are,  "the  pure  preaching  of  God's  word,  and 
the  due  administration  of  the  sacraments,  according 
to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  neces- 
sity are  requisite  to  the  same."  Now,  the  experience 
of  centuries  furnishes  proof  which  you  will  not  easily 
answer,  that  the  word  may  be  preached  as  purely  by 
Presbyterian  ministers  as  by  those  who  have  been 
ordained  by  diocesan  bishops.  Even  Daubeny  speaks 
with  the  highest  respect  of  the  writings  of  Doddridge, 
who  never  had  Episcopal  orders ;  and  Archdeacon 
Wilberforce  confesses,  that  it  was  by  the  perusal  of 
one  of  them,  the  Rise  and  Progress,  that  his  own  vene- 
rable father  was  led  to  become  pious;  and  he  will 
not,  I  presume,  venture  to  deny,  that  the  very 
same  doctrine  may  be  preached  to  their  hearers, 
by  Presbyterian  ministers,  which  has  been  so  signally 
blessed,  when  it  is  met  with  in  their  writings.*  And, 

*  No  work  published  by  any  Episcopalian  divine,  during  the  last 
century,  has  been  so  much  honoured  in  the  conversion  of  sinners,  in 
all  countries  where  Christianity  is  professed,  as  that  invaluable  trea- 
tise.   Many  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


27 


in  regard  to  Presbyterian  baptism,  Mr.  Gladstone  at 
least  ought  to  acknowledge  its  validity;  otherwise  his 
father,  who  was  baptized  by  a  Presbyterian,  and  was 
never  re-baptized,  would  evidently  be  unchristianized, 
and  could  have  no  hope  of  salvation.  Besides,  as  you 
acknowledge  baptism  by  midwives,  captains  of  ships 
at  sea,  and  Popish  priests,  though  some  of  the  latter,  as 
Jewel  informs  us,  have  been  so  ignorant  as  to  use  these 
words,  when  administering  that  ordinance,  which  are 
not  to  be  found  in  any  language,  "  Ego  te  baptizo  in 
nomine  Patria,  Filia,  et  Spirita  Sancta*,"  and  as  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  you  so  much  admire,  accord- 
ing to  the  36th  and  23d  canons  of  the  Canon  Law, 
considers  baptism,  even  by  Pagans,  in  case  of  neces- 
sity, as  valid,  I  cannot  see  on  what  ground  you  can 
question  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  baptism.  It  is 
declared,  indeed,  in  your  23d  Article,  that  "it  is  not 
lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of 
public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in  the 
congregation  before  he  be  lawfully  called."  But  it  is 
added,  "  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and 
sent  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  that  work  by  those 
who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the 
congregation  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's 
vineyard."  Upon  which  Bishop  Burnet  remarks, 
when  commenting  on  the  words,  "  those  that  are  law- 
fully called  and  sent,"  (and  his  exposition  was  approv- 
ed of  by  Archbishop  Tillotson,  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  and 
other  prelates,)  "the  article  does  not  resolve  this  into 
any  particular  constitution,  but  leaves  the  matter  open 
and  large  for  such  accidents  as  had  happened,  and 
such  as  might  still  happen.  They  who  drew  it  up 
had  the  state  of  the  different  Churches  before  their 
eyes  that  had  been  differently  constituted  from 
their  own."  And  says  Bingham,  your  great  anti- 
quary, "  Episcopal  divines  have  no  need  to  have  Epis- 
copal government  put  into  the  article  (the  19th)  as  a 

well  as  others,  have  confessed,  that  it  was  the  means  of  awakening 
their  first  serious  convictions  about  salvation. 
*  Defence  of  his  Apology,  p.  206. 


28 


LETTERS  ON 


third  note  of  the  Church,  though  the  good  men,  the 
Broivnists,  were  once  for  having  discipline  made  a 
third  note  of  the  Church,  and  so  aggrieved  for  the 
want  of  it,  that,"  as  you  do  toward  us,  "  they  un- 
churched the  Church  of  England."*  "  In  all  their 
disputes  with  the  Papists  they  never  require  more 
than  these  two  notes  of  the  Church,  namely,  the 
preaching  of  the  pure  word  of  God,  and  the  due  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance,  as  stated  in  the  19th  Article."!  Agreeably 
to  which,  Hooper  remarks,  (Declaration  of  Christ  and 
his  Offices,  c.  11,)  "The  commune  wealthe  of  the  trew 
Churche  is  knowyn  by  these  two  markes,  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospele,  and  the  right  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments." If  the  language,  however,  of  your  formu- 
laries is  so  very  general  that  it  may  be  applied  to  Pres- 
byterian as  well  as  to  Episcopalian  Churches,  and  if 
they  were  drawn  up  in  this  way,  as  is  acknowledged 
by  these  prelates,  and  that  distinguished  antiquary, 
to  avoid  the  smallest  appearance  of  imputation  against 
the  validity  of  the  orders  of  the  former  Churches,  it 
cannot  certainly  be  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  that 
Presbyterian  ministers  ought  not  to  be  considered  as 
Christian  ministers,  and  that  their  people  can  have  no 
covenanted  hope  of  salvation. 

*  Frencli  Church's  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,  vol.  ii.  of 
his  works,  p.  727. 

t  Page  726.  The  same  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  19th  Article 
is  given  by  Bishop  Tomline,  who  represents  Dr.  Pu«ey  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's sentiments  as  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  held  only  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  "  In  like  manner," 
says  he,  in  his  Elements  of  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  325,  "  we  often  speak 
of  the  Church  of  England,  of  Holland,  of  Geneva,  and  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  all  these  different  Churches  are  parts  of  the  visible  Catholic 
Church.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Church  of  Rome  considers  itself 
as  the  only  Christian  Church;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  extend  the 
name  to  any  congregation  of  faithful  men  in  the  which  the  "pure  word  of 
God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  ministered  according  to 
Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite 
to  the  same.  The  adherence,  therefore,  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  Gospel  is  sufficient  to  constitute  a  visible  Church."  And  he 
adds,  p.  326,  "  Upon  the  same  principle  we  forbear  to  inquire  what 
precise  additions  or  defects  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments 
ordained  by  Christ  annul  their  (fficacy." 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


29 


This  view  of  the  principles  which  I  attribute  to 
your  Church  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  neither 
Cranmer,  nor  any  of  your  leading  Reformers  who 
drew  up  the  forty-two  articles  of  Edward,  nor  Jewel, 
who  bore  a  principal  part  in  reducing  them  to  thirty- 
nine  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  believed  in  the  divine 
origin  of  Episcopacy,  but  taught  expressly,  that  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  bishops  and  presbyters  con- 
stituted only  one  order.  I  shall  show  afterwards  that 
this  was  the  opinion  of  Jewel;  and  it  was  undeniably 
that  of  Cranmer  and  his  fellow  Reformers,  for  Bishop 
Burnet  has  preserved  a  paper  subscribed  by  him,  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  eleven  bishops,  and  many  doc- 
tors and  civilians,  in  which  they  say,  that  "  in  the 
New  Testament  no  mention  is  made  of  any  degrees 
or  distinctions  of  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or 
ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops."  Nor  is  it  any 
objection  to  this  statement,  that  it  is  affirmed  in  the 
preface  to  the  Book  of  Ordination,  that  "  from  the 
Apostles'  time  there  have  been  three  orders,  bishops, 
priests  and  deacons;"  for  it  is  said  only  that  they 
were  from  or  after  their  time,  but  not  in  their  time. 
But  if  they  admit  distinctly  that  the  superiority  of 
bishops  to  presbyters  was  a  matter  of  mere  expedi- 
ency, and  not  of  divine  institution,  will  it  be  believed, 
for  a  moment,  by  any  candid  individual,  that  they 
could  intend  to  teach  in  your  articles  the  doctrine 
which  you  advocate,  namely,  that  Presbyterian  min- 
isters, however  orthodox  and  pious,  are  not  Christian 
ministers,  and  that  their  people  are  only  midway 
between  you  and  heathenism? 

And  that  such  cannot  be  the  doctrine  which  is 
sanctioned  by  your  formularies  will  be  manifest,  I 
apprehend,  if  you  look  into  the  writings  of  the  men 
who  made  them,  and  give  them  credit  for  ordinary 
honesty  and  consistency,  or  into  the  writings  of  their 
successors  for  seventy  years,  and  attend  to  their  con- 
duct either  towards  Presbyterian  ministers,  or  Pres- 
byterian churches.  If  Cranmer,  for  instance,  had 
held  your  views,  and  had  intended  to  introduce  them 
into  the  Articles,  would  he  have  "sent  letters,"  as 


30 


LETTERS  ON 


Strype  informs  us,  "to  Bullinger,  Calvin,  and  Me- 
lancthon,  disclosing  to  them  his  pious  design  to  draw 
up  a  book  of  articles,  and  requesting  their  counsel 
and  furtherance?"  Or  would  he  have  appointed 
Knox,  along  with  Grindal,  to  examine  it  before  it 
was  adopted?  Or  would  he  have  submitted  the 
Prayer  Book  to  the  Genevese  Reformer,  or  said  to 
him,  that  "  he  could  do  nothing  more  profitable  to 
the  Church  than  to  write  often  to  the  King?"  Or 
would  he  have  made  two  of  his  friends,  Bucer  and 
Martyr,  the  first  Protestant  Professors  of  Theology 
in  Oxford  and  Cambridge?'  Would  any  of  the 
bishops  have  recommended  that  the  youth  should  be 
examined  in  his  catechism  after  evening  prayers? 
(Strype's  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  91.)  Or  would  his  insti- 
tutes, as  is  mentioned  by  Bayle,  "  have  been  placed 
in  the  parish  churches,  that  the  people  might  read 
them,  and  in  each  of  the  universities,  that  after  the 
students  had  finished  their  course  of  philosophy,  those 
of  them  who  were  intended  for  the  ministry  might 
be  first  of  all  lectured  from  that  book?"  If  Edward 
the  Sixth,  and  his  bishops  and  counsellors,  had  enter- 
tained your  views  and  Mr.  Gladstone's,  and  had 
considered  them  as  taught  in  your  Articles,  would  he 
have  granted  a  charter  to  the  Church  of  the  Germans 
in  London,  though  they  were  not  Episcopalians, 
allowing  them, among  other  things,  "to  exercise  their 
own  proper  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  their  own  pro- 
per peculiar  ecclesiastical  discipline — that  a  Church 
instructed  in  truly  Christian  and  apostolical  opin- 
ions and  rites,  and  grown  up  under  holy  ministers, 
might  be  preserved 7t  If  Elizabeth  and  her  prelates, 
and  the  enlightened  statesmen  who  directed  her 
counsels,  had  believed  that  your  sentiments  accorded 

*  Strype's  Life  of  Cranmer,  pp.  407-413;  Council  Dook  and 
Strype's  Cranmer,  p.  273 ;  Nicholl's  Comment,  on  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon  Prayer,  Preface,  p.  5;  Gerdesii  Hist.  Reformationis,  torn.  iv. 
p.  365;  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p  91.  Peter  Alexander  also,  a 
minister  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  France,  and  other  foreign  Pro- 
testant clergymen,  received  prebends  from  Cranmer. 

t  Some  excellent  observations  on  this  charter  may  be  met  with  in 
an  Essay  on  the  Loyalty  of  Presbyterians,  published  in  1713. 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACY. 


31 


either  with  Scripture,  or  with  the  Articles  of  your 
Church,  would  she  have  passed  an  act  in  the  thir- 
teenth year  of  her  reign,  as  is  mentioned  by  Strype, 
"  by  which  the  ordinations  of  the  foreign  Reformed 
Churches  were  declared  valid,  and  those  that  had 
no  other  orders  were  made  of  the  same  capacity  with 
others  to  enjoy  any  place  in  the  ministry  within 
England,  merely  on  their  subscribing  the  Arti- 
cles?"* Would  she  have  interposed  in  behalf  of 
the  Reformed  Churches,  when  the  Lutheran  princes 
threatened  to  persecute  them,  because  they  refused 
to  subscribe  the  Form  of  Concord,  denominating  them 
"  Pious  Churches,"  or  proposed  that  they  should 
meet  with  deputies  from  the  Churches  of  Scotland, 
Basil,  Embden,  Bremen,  &c.  and  draw  up  a  common 
Confession  of  Faith,  which  was  to  be  reviewed  by 
Gualter,  and  Beza  ;t  or,  as  is  stated  by  her  successor 
and  Dr.  Heylin,  would  she  have  "established  the 
French  Presbyterian  Church"  in  the  islands  of  Jer- 
sey and  Guernsey? J  If  Archbishop  Parker,  and  the 
bishops  of  his  day,  had  concurred  in  your  exposition 
of  the  doctrines  of  your  Church,  would  they  have 
approved  of  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession?  (Strype's 
Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  488);  or  would  his  successor  Grin- 
dal  have  applied  to  the  magistrates  of  Strasburgh,  in 
behalf  of  the  Dutch  Church  in  that  city,  representing 
its  members  as  "  members  of  Christ  ?"  or  to  the  Lords 
of  the  Council  for  a  contribution  to  Geneva,  "  for  the 
relief  of  that  poor  town,  which  had  served  for  a 
nursery  unto  God's  Church,  as  well  as  for  the  main- 
tenance and  conservation  of  true  religion?"  or 
would  he  have  sustained  the  orders  of  a  Scotsman  of 

*  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  514. 

t  Blondel's  Actcs  Authentiqucs  des  Fglises  Reformers  de  France, 
Germanie,  Grande  Bretagne,  Pologne,  Hongrie,  Pais  Has,  touchant  la 
Paix  el  Charite  Fraternelle;  edit.  1655,  pp.  61-62.  Elizabeth  sent  an 
ambassador  to  a  meeting  of  the  deputies  of  these  Churches  at  Frank- 
fort. 

{  In  regard  to  the  Islands  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey,  see  her  letter 
to  the  baillie  and  jurats  of  the  former,  in  Fade's  Account  of  Jersey, 
p.  123.  When  a  synod  of  the  Churches  met,  June  28,  1576,  and 
drew  up  their  plan  of  Church  government,  the  Governors  of  the 
island  attended  and  ratified  it  by  their  signatures ;  pp.  124-125. 


32 


LETTERS  ON 


the  name  of  Morison,  "  according,"  as  he  expressed 
it,  "  to  the  laudable  form  a?id  rile  of  the  Reformed 
(Presbyterian)  Church  of  Scotland  ?*  And  with- 
out quoting  at  length  the  sentiments  of  Jewel  ;t  of 
Bishop  Cox,  who,  in  a  letter  to  Gualter  in  1565, 
speaks  of  the  Church  of  Geneva  as  a  Church  of  God, 
and  its  ministers  as  faithful  ministers; %  of  Hooker,§ 
and  of  Sutclive,  who,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Church, 
maintains,  that  "  that  is  an  orthodox  and  truly  Catho- 
lic Church,  which,  though  dispersed  throughout  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  Germany,  France,  and  other  countries, 
is  united  by  a  harmonious  confession  of  the  Christian 
faith;"  and  of  Bridges,  who  says  that  "the  difference 
of  these  things,  (i.  e.  the  manner  of  orders,  offices, 
rites,  and  ceremonies,)  concerning  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment, is  not  directlye  materiall  to  salvation,  neither 
ought  to  break  the  bond  of  peace  and  Christian  con- 
cord, "||  may  I  solicit  your  attention  to  the  opinion  of 
Archbishop  Whitgift,  who  was  likely  to  be  as  well 
acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  your  Articles,  as  you, 
or  Dr.  Hook,  or  any  of  your  followers? 

"  The  essentiall  notes  of  the  Churche,"  says  he, 
"  be  these  only,  the  true  preaching  of  the  worde  of 
God,  and  the  right  administration  of  the  sacramentes, 
for,  as  Master  Calvine  sayth,  in  his  booke  against 
the  Anabaptistes,  This  honour  is  meete  to  be  given 
to  the  worde  of  God,  and  to  his  sacramentes,  that 
wheresoever  we  see  the  worde  of  God  truely  preach- 
ed, and  God  accordyng  to  the  same  truely  wor- 
shipped, and  the  sacramentes  withoute  superstition 
administered,  there  we  may  without  all  controversie 
conclude  the  Churche  of  God  to  be.  The  same  is  the 
opinion  of  other  godly  and  learned  writers,  and  the 
judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  as  appeareth 
by  their  Confessions.  So  that  notwithstanding  govern- 
ment, or  some  kynde  of  government,  may  be  a  parte 

*  Strype's  Grindal,  p  271. 

t  Defence  of  the  Apology,  p.  28. 

t  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  i.  Appendix,  p.  57. 

§  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  iii.  p.  152. 

II  Defence  of  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  87. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


33 


of  the  Church,  touching  the  outward  forme  and  per- 
fection of  it,  yet  it  is  not  such  a  part  of  the  essence 
and  being,  but  that  it  may  be  the  Church  of  Christ 
without  this  or  that  kind  of  government,  and  there- 
fore the  kynde  of  government  is  not  necessarie  unto 
salvation."*  It  is  true,  that  after  his  elevation  to  the 
Primacy,  he  first  suspended  and  then  deposed  Tra- 
vers,  because  he  had  not  received  ordination  from  a 
diocesan  bishop;  yet  it  was  not  because  he  regarded 
Presbyterian  orders  as  invalid  in  a  religious  point  of 
view,  but  because  he  considered  Episcopacy  as  best 
adapted  to  the  civil  constitution  of  England;^  for 
he  declared  expressly,  that  "  he  did  not  pinch  at 
any  Church  that  used  Presbytery,  so  that  they  had 
the  consent  of  the  civil  magistrate ;"1  and  that  "he 
did  not  condemne  any  Churches  where  that  govern- 
ment was  lawfully  and  without  daunger  received,  but 
had  only  regard  to  whole  kingdomes,  especially  this 
realme,  wbere  it  could  not,"  he  supposed,  "  but  be 
dangerous,"§  because  Elizabeth  was  an  absolute 
monarch,  and  would  admit  no  control  either  in 
Church  or  State. 

I  might  show  how  much  your  sentiments  about  the 
meaning  of  the  Articles  differ  from  those  of  James  the 
First  and  his  counsellors,  for,  in  1615,  he  sent  Du 
Moulin  to  the  Presbyterian  Synod  of  the  Isle  of 
France,  to  urge  them  to  unite  with  the  other  Protes- 
tant Churches  who  were  sound  in  the  faith,  and  ready 
to  acknowledge  each  other  as  Christian  Churches,  and 
to  exercise  mutual  forbearance,  in  so  far  as  they  dif- 

*  Defense  of  his  Aunsvvere  to  Cartwright's  Admonition,  p.  491. 

t  See  a  number  of  passages  in  the  Defense  immediately  before 
p.  658.  Notes  on  Trav'ers'  Reasons,  Append,  to  Strype's  YVhitgifl, 
p.  108. 

t  Defense  of  the  Aunswere,  p.  633. 

§  Defense  of  the  Aunswere,  p.  658.  In  p.  658,  659,  he  attempts 
to  prove  that  "  there  is  no  one  ccrtaine  kinde  of  government  in  the 
Churche  which  must  of  neccssitie  be  perpetually  observed  ;"  and  in 
p.  389,  that  "the  externall  government  of  the  Church  must  bee  accord- 
ing to  the  form  of  government  used  in  the  commonwealth,"  which 
goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  error  to  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Pusey  and 
the  Papists. 

3 


34 


LETTERS  ON 


f'ered,  about  ceremonies  and  Church  government.' 
And  he  issued  a  proclamation  at  the  same  time,  con- 
firming the  establishment  of  Presbyterianism  in  Jersey 
and  Guernsey,  "after  the  pious  example  of  his  sister 
Elizabeth,  and  for  the  advancement  of  the  glory  of 
Jllmighty  God,  and  the  edification  of  his  Church.^X 
"  He  is  blind,"  said  Bishop  Andrews,  though  a  high 
Episcopalian,  "  who  does  not  see  churches  existing 
without  it,  (Episcopalian  Church  government,)  and 
he  must  have  a  heart  as  hard  as  iron,  who  can  deny 
them  salvation. "X  "Your  praise,"  said  Dr.  Carlton 
in  the  Synod  of  Dort  to  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of 
Holland,  "  is  in  all  the  Churches."§  "  In  doctrine  and 
the  profession  of  the  orthodox  faith,"  says  Dr.  Cra- 
kenthorp,  "  there  is  no  difference  between  us  and  the 
Reformed  Churches;  and  while  we  agree  in  this,  we 
can  easily  forbear  with  each  other  as  to  ceremonies 
and  government."||  And  without  quoting  at  length 
from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Abbot,  Bishop  of  Salisbury, 
who  acknowledges  that  "  there  lived  in  the  Church  of 
England  many  reverend  and  worthy  men,  which  did 
not  reject  the  Presbytery  ;"1T  of  Dr.  Field,  who,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  Church,  employs  a  whole  chapter  to 
prove  against  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  a  strenuous  de- 
fender of  your  opinion,  that  the  Reformed  Churches, 
"whose  ministers  were  ordained  only  by  presbyters, 
did  not  cease,  on  that  account,  to  have  any  ministerie 
at  all;"**,  and  of  Bishop  Davenant,  who  says,  "we 

*  See  the  Escrit  de  M.  du  Moulin,  Envoye  de  Londres  au  Synode 
Provincial  de  l'lsle  de  France,  in  Blondel's  Actes  Authentiques,  p. 
72—74. 

t  He  declares  them  to  be  "true  and  lawful  Churches,"  because 
they  were  not  in  England,  but  in  part  of  the  duchy  of  Normandy, 
for  toleration  was  then  unknown  in  Britain  among  the  Episcopalians, 
though  it  was  practised  among  the  Presbyterians  in  Holland. 

X  Respon.  ad  Secundam  Epist.  Molinasi,  inter  opera,  p.  35. 

§  Brandt's  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  iii.  p.  4 — 6. 

y  Defcnsio  Ecclesioe  AnglicanEe  contra  de  Dominis,  p.  254.  He 
says,  p.  255,  to  de  Dominis,  who  had  censured  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land for  endeavouring  to  effect  a  union  between  herself  and  the  other 
Reformed  Churches,  "neither  you  yourself  nor  any  other  could  have 
bestowed  on  her  a  finer  encomium." 

IT  Eleuthcria,  p.  90.  **  Chap.  39,  book  3. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


35 


account  of  them,  (the  Scottish,  Irish,  and  all  other 
forraigne  Churches  of  the  Reformation,)  as  our  breth- 
ren in  Christ,  and  doe  solemnly  protest  that  we  enter- 
tain a  holy  and  brotherly  communion  with  them,"* 
I  shall  notice  only  further,  the  sentiments  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher  and  Bishop  Hall,  who  were  certainly 
as  likely  to  be  acquainted  with  the  true  meaning  of 
your  Articles,  as  you,  Mr.  Newman,  Mr.  Gladstone, 
or  any  other  of  your  followers.  "  For  testifying  my 
communion  with  these  Churches,"  (those  of  France 
and  Holland,)  said  the  first  of  these  prelates,  "which 
I  do  love  and  honour  as  true  members  of  the  Church 
Universal,  I  do  profess,  that  with  like  affection,  I 
should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands  of 
the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I  should 
do  at  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers  if  I  were  in 
Charenton."t  And,  said  the  second, "  Blessed  be  God 
there  is  no  difference  in  any  essential  matter  between 
the  Church  of  England  and  her  sisters  of  the  Refor- 
mation ;  we  accord  in  every  point  of  Christian  doc- 
trine without  the  least  variation ;  their  public  Confes- 
sions and  ours  are  sufficient  conviction  to  the  world 
of  our  full  and  absolute  agreement :  the  only  differ- 
ence is  in  the  forme  of  outward  administration,  where- 
in we  are  so  far  agreed,  that  we  alt  pro/ess  this  forme 
not  to  be  essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church,  (though 
much  importing  the  well  or  better  being  of  it,  accord- 
ing to  our  several  apprehensions  thereof,)  and  that 
Ave  do  all  retain  a  reverent  and  loving  opinion  of  each 
other,  in  our  own  several  ways  ;  not  seeing  any  reason 
why  so  poor  a  diversity  should  work  any  alienation 
of  affection  in  us  towards  one  another.";):  I  might 
easily  have  added  many  other  testimonies  from  your 
most  eminent  writers  during  the  first  sixty  years  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  but  I  trust  that  what  has 
been  produced  will  be  considered  as  sufficient  to  au- 
thorise me  to  maintain,  that  there  is  not  a  fact  more 

*  Drury's  Fides  Calholica,  p.  41. 

t  Judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh  on  certain  points, 
p.  113. 

t  Peace  Maker,  vol.  iii.  of  his  Works,  p.  560. 


LETTERS  ON 


clearly  established  in  the  history  of  your  Church,  than 
that  the  sentiments  which  have  been  expressed  by 
yourself  and  your  followers,  respecting  the  ministers 
and  members  of  Presbyterian  Churches,  are  in  direct 
opposition  to  her  fundamental  principles. 

You  may  tell  me,  I  am  aware,  with  the  late  Arch- 
deacon Daubeny,  that  "  if  I  read  over  the  9th,  10th, 
and  11th  canons,  I  will  find  that  no  meetings,  assem- 
blies, or  congregations  of  the  King's  born  subjects,  but 
those  of  the  Established  Church,  may  rightly  chal- 
lenge to  themselves  the  name  of  true  and  lawful 
Churches."*  But  you  must  surely  know,  that  these 
canons  Avere  never  confirmed  by  act  of  Parliament; 
that  they  were  passed  by  the  Convocation,  when  the 
principle  of  toleration  was  unknown,  and  that  now, 
when  it  is  recognised  by  the  law  of  the  land,  they  are 
virtually  neutralised.  The  men  who  made  them  did 
not  deny  that  Presbyterian  Churches  in  other  coun- 
tries were  true  and  lawful  Churches,  but  maintained 
merely  that  they  were  not  so  in  England,  because 
they  imagined  that  the  Sovereign  might  model  as  he 
pleased  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  the  only 
polity  which  ought  to  be  established  there  was  that 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  because  it  was  best  fitted  to 
promote  absolute  monarchy.  Such,  we  have  seen, 
were  the  sentiments  of  Whitgift,  and  others  of  your 
bishops.  Such  were  the  sentiments  of  Downam,  who 
observes,  in  the  defence  of  his  famous  sermon,  seven 
years  after  the  passing  of  these  canons,  "  the  King 
indeed  doth  say,  that  it  is  granted  to  every  Christian 
king,  prince,  and  commonwealthe,  to  prescribe  to 
their  subjects  the  outward  form  of  ecclesiastical  regi- 
ment which  may  seem  best  to  agree  with  the  form 
of  their  civil  government.'^  Such  were  the  senti- 
ments of  Lord  Bacon,  whom  James  at  one  time  con- 
sulted frequently  in  regard  to  the  Church.  "  1  for  my 
part,"  says  he,  "do  confess,  that  in  revolving  the 
Scriptures,  I  could  never  find,  but  that  God  had  left 
the  like  liberty  to  the  church  government,  as  he  had 

*  Appendix  to  his  Guide  to  the  Church,  p.  270 
t  Page  8. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


37 


done  to  the  civil  government,  to  be  varied  according 
to  time,  and  place,  and  accidents.  The  substance  of 
doctrine  is  immutable,  and  so  are  the  general  rules  of 
government ;  but  for  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  for  the 
particular  hierarchies,  policies,  and  disciplines  of 
Churches,  they  be  left  at  large."*  And,  says  James 
himself,  "  I  protest  upon  mine  honour,  I  mean  it  not 
generally  (the  name  of  Puritan,)  of  all  preachers  or 
others  that  like  better  the  single  form  of  policie  of  our 
Church,  (the  Church  of  Scotland,)  then  of  the  many 
ceremonies  in  the  Church  of  England,  that  are  per- 
suaded their  bishops  smell  of  Papal  supremacie, 
that  the  surplice,  the  corner  cap,  and  such  like,  are 
the  outward  badges  of  Popish  errors.  No,  I  am  so 
far  from  being  contentious  about  these  things,  (which, 
for  my  own  part,  I  ever  esteemed  indifferent,)  as  I  do 
equally  love  and  honour  the  learned  men  of  either 
these  opinions."t  But  if  such  were  the  sentiments  of 
the  King  himself,  and  of  some  of  his  principal  advisers, 
and  of  the  leading  members  of  both  Houses  of  Convo- 
cation, who  made  these  canons,  can  you  seriously 
believe  it  to  be  the  doctrine  of  these  men,  or  the  doc- 
trine of  your  Church  in  the  present  day,  that  none  but 
clergymen  who  have  received  their  orders  from  dio- 
cesan bishops,  in  an  unbroken  series  from  the  Apos- 
tles, are  Christian  ministers,  and  that  none  but  the 
members  of  Episcopalian  Churches  have  a  covenant- 
ed title  to  the  blessings  of  salvation  ?f 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  yours,  &c. 

*  Considerations  touching  the  Pacification  of  the  Church,  address- 
cd  to  King  James,  vol.  iii.  of  his  Works,  p.  15U. 
+  Basilicon  Doron,  p.  144  of  his  Works. 

1  James  no  doubt  endeavoured  afterwards  to  crush  the  Presbyte- 
rians, but  it  was  owing  entirely  to  their  refusing  to  submit  to  his 
absolute  authority,  in  religious  as  well  as  civil  matters,  arid  to  the 
gross  flattery  which  he  received  from  the  bishops,  while  the  former 
spoke  to  him  openly  and  honestly,  when  they  could  not  agree  to  his 
claims.  "  I  have  ever,"  said  Bishop  Barlow,  (preface  to  his  account 
of  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  p.  2,)  "  accounted  the  personal 
commendation  of  living  princes  in  men  of  our  sort  a  verball  symony" 
And  yet  compare  with  this  remark  the  adulation  which  he  acknow- 
ledges was  paid  to  James  at  this  conference  by  the  Episcopalians, 
p.  20— G2,  83—84.  Bancroft  fell  on  his  knees  and  said  to  him,  "I 
protest  iny  heart  mcltcth  for  joy  that  Almighty  God,  of  his  singular 


38 


LETTER  III. 


These  doctrines  condemned  in  the  strongest  terms  by  the  most  distinguish- 
ed Protestant  Statesmen  after  the  Reformation;  Cecil,  the  Lord  Presi- 
dent of  Queen  Elizabeth's  Council,  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  and  Lord  Bacon, 
and  denounced  as  "  a  Popish  conceit,"  by  the  leading  bishops  and  clergy. 
Dissimilarity  between  the  Church  of  England,  beyond  whose  pale,  and 
that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Puseyites  deny  that  there  is  any  hope  of 
salvation,  and  the  Apostolic  Church,  in  the  extent  of  its  bishoprics,  the 
civil  power  exercised  by  its  prelates,  the  multitude  of  its  ceremonies,  and 
"  its  want,"  according  to  its  own  acknowledgment,  "  of  a  godly  disci- 
pline." 

Reverend  Sir, — I  trust  that  it  has  been  proved  in 
the  preceding  letter,  that  so  far  were  your  principles 
from  receiving  the  smallest  countenance  from  the 
clergy  of  your  Church,  for  seventy  years  after  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  they  were  spoken  of  gene- 
rally in  terms  of  the  strongest  and  most  decided  dis- 
approbation. Nor  were  these  feelings  confined  to 
your  leading  dignitaries,  but  were  expressed  by  some 
of  the  most  talented  and  distinguished  among  the 
laity;  and,  in  particular,  by  some  of  the  most  illustri- 
ous of  Elizabeth's  ministers,  who  constituted  the  pil- 

mercy,  hath  given  us  such  a  king-,  as  since  Christ's  time  hath  never 
been."  And  said  Chancellor  Egerton,  "  I  have  never  seen  the  king 
and  priest  so  fully  united  in  one  person."  Upon  which  it  was  observed 
by  Warburton,  that  "  Sancho  Panza  never  made  a  better  speech, 
nor  more  to  the  purpose,  during  his  government."  Nay,  in  the  pre- 
face to  the  edition  of  the  works  of  James,  which  was  published  by 
Bishop  Bilson,  a.  d.  1616,  during  the  life  of  that  monarch,  he  con- 
cludes one  of  i he  most  fulsome  pieces  of  flattery  that  was  ever  writ- 
ten, by  raising  him  in  one  respect  above  Solomon!  How  justly  these 
praises  were  bestowed,  may  be  learned  from  James's  "  Counterblaste 
to  Tobacco,"  to  which  he  had  a  great  aversion,  and  his  Treatise  on 
Demonologie,  the  last  of  which  is  represented  by  the  bishop  as  "  a 
rare  piece  for  many  precepts  and  experiments,  both  in  divinitie  and 
naturall  philosophic."  The  following  is  a  specimen  of  his  wisdom 
and  learning,  taken  from  the  titles  of  some  of  the  chapters  of  the  lat- 
ter work,  and  the  illustrations  are  not  less  worthy  of  the  man  who 
was  superior  to  Solomon.  "  The  forme  of  the  conventions  of  witches, 
and  of  their  adoring  of  their  master;"  book  ii.  chap.  3.  "  What  are 
the  ways  possible,  whereby  the  witches  may  transport  themselves  to 
places  farre  distant;"  chap.  4.  "  Why  there  are  more  women  of  that 
craft  than  men;"  chap.  5;  and,  "What  sort  of  folkes  are  least  or 
most  subject  to  receive  harm  by  witchcraft;"  chap.  6,  &c. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


39 


lars  of  her  political  greatness,  and  whose  extensive 
acquirements,  even  in  theological  learning,  present  a 
very  striking  and  instructive  contrast  to  t  hose  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  as  far  as  we  can  judge  from  his  writings. 
So  far  was  Cecil  from  approving  of  your  sentiments, 
that  he  urged  his  Mistress  to  attempt  that  general 
union  among  Protestants  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded,  without  any  regard  to  their  different  forms  of 
ecclesiastical  polity.  So  little  did  another  of  her  most 
enlightened  counsellors  sympathise  with  your  views, 
that  when  Archbishop  Sandys  endeavoured  to  deprive 
Whittingham  of  the  deanery  of  Durham,  because  he 
had  received  only  Presbyterian  orders,  it  failed.  And 
when  the  attempt  was  renewed,  "  it  again,"  says 
Strype,  "  fell  to  the  ground ;  the  Lord  President  ob- 
serving, with  some  warmth,  before  the  Archbishop 
and  the  other  members  of  the  Commission,  that  he 
could  not  in  conscience  agree  to  deprive  him  for  that, 
for  it  ivould  be  ill  taken  of  all  the  godly  and  learn- 
ed at  home  and  abroad,  that  we  should  allow,"  as 
you  propose,  "  of  the  Popish  massing  priests  in  our 
ministry,  and  disallow  of  ministers  made  in  a 
Reformed  Church.''''*  So  greatly  was  Lord  Bacon 
opposed  to  your  opinion,  when  it  was  brought  for- 
ward by  some  in  the  days  of  Laud,  that  he  speaks  of 
it  in  terms  of  decided  reprobation.  "  Yea,  and  some 
indiscreet  persons,"  says  he,  "  have  been  bold  in 
open  preaching  to  use  dishonourable  and  derogatory 
speech  and  censure  of  the  Churches  abroad,  and  that 
so  far,  as  some  of  our  men,  (as  I  have  heard,)  ordain- 
ed in  foreign  parts,  have  been  pronounced  to  be  no 
lawful  ministers.  Thus  we  see  the  beginnings  were 
modest,  but  the  extremes  are  violent,  so  as  there  is 
almost  as  great  a  distance  now  of  either  side  from 
itself,  as  was  at  the  first  of  one  from  the  other."t 
And  in  1588,  when  Bancroft,  in  his  sermon  at  Paul's 
Cross,  advocated  only  the  divine  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy, without  unchurching  the  Presbyterian  Churches, 

*  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  523. 

t  Advertisement  touching  the  Controversies  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  426. 


40 


LETTERS  ON 


it  excited  the  astonishment  of  Sir  Francis  Knollys, 
Queen  Elizabeth's  kinsman,  who  had  never  heard 
such  doctrine  propounded  before;  and  upon  writing 
to  Dr.  Reynolds,  he  received  a  long  and  able  confuta- 
tion of  it,  which  I  am  firmly  persuaded  you  have 
never  seen,  and  which  cannot  be  too  generally  perus- 
ed by  the  members  of  your  Church  in  the  present 
day. 

Not  only,  however,  was  your  opinion  condemned 
by  the  clergy  and  laity  of  your  Church,  at  the  period 
referred  to,  but  it  was  considered  as  one  of  the  pecu- 
liar and  most  obnoxious  tenets  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
by  which  she  was  distinguished  from  the  whole  of  the 
Protestant  Churches. 

Papists,  you  know,  say  of  their  Church,  that  it  alone 
is  the  true  Church  in  which  you  will  meet  with  the 
real  apostolical  succession  and  the  means  of  salvation. 
"Nevertheless,"  says  Jewel,  "in  this  they  triumph;" 
and  it  is  the  very  language  which  is  employed  by 
your  followers  respecting  the  Church  of  England  to 
British  Presbyterians,  "  that  they  bee  the  Church ; 
that  their  Church  is  Christ's  Spouse,  the  pillar  of  truth, 
the  arke  of  Noe,  and  that  without  it  there  is  no  hope 
of  salvation."*  And  Professor  Nichol  Burn,  in  an 
address  to  James  the  First,  gives  thanks  to  God,  "  be- 
cause of  his  infinite  gudness,  he  had  granted  him 
knowlege  to  his  aeternal  salvation,  delivering  him  out 
of  the  thraldome  and  bondage  of  that  idolatrous  Cal- 
vinisme,  (Presbytery,)  with  the  quhilk,  alace,  manie, 
be  ane  blind  zeal,  ar  fraudfullie  deceavit,  to  the  lament- 
able perdition  of  their  awin  saulis,  except  be  earnest 
repentance  spedelie  they  returne  to  their  spiritual 
mother,  the  halie  Catholic  Kirk."t  Now,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  conceive  stronger  terms  than  those  in  which 
your  Reformers  reprobate  the  idea,  that  communion 
either  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  any  other  Epis- 

*  Apology,  part  4.  chap.  9.  divis.  2.  See,  too,  part  6.  chap.  20. 
divis.  1. 

t  Disputation  concerning'  the  Controversit  Headdis  of  Religion, 
hulden  in  the  rcalme  of  Scotland,  the  zear  of  God  ane  thousand  five 
hundred  and  fourscoir  zcirs,  &c,  by  Nicol  Burne,  p.  2. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


41 


copalian  Church,  is  necessary  to  salvation,  or  that 
orders  derived  from  diocesan  bishops  are  necessary, 
on  the  part  of  faithful  pastors,  to  give  efficacy  to  their 
ministrations,  or  to  entitle  their  Churches  to  the  hon- 
ourable character  of  Christian  Churches.  "  There- 
fore," says  Jewel  to  Harding  the  Jesuit,  "  we  neither 
have  bishops  without  church,  nor  church  without 
bishops.  Neither  doth  the  Church  of  England  this 
day  depend  of  them  whom  you  often  call  apostates, 
as  if  our  Church  were  no  Church  without  them.  Not- 
withstanding, if  there  were  not  one  of  them,  (the 
clergy  who  had  received  their  orders  from  diocesan 
bishops,)  nor  of  us  (the  bishops)  left  alive,  yet  will 
not  therefore  the  whole  Church  of  England  flee  to 
Lovaine"  for  orders.  And  he  declares,  that  in  such 
circumstances  pious  laymen  might  renew  the  succes- 
sion* "  The  Pape,"  observes  Whitgift,  (and  it  is 
remarked  by  Strype,  that  his  Aunswere  to  Cartwright 
may  be  justly  esteemed  and  applied  to  as  one  of  the 
public  books  of  the  Church  of  England,t)  "The  Pape 
says,  that  to  be  subject  to  him  is  of  necessitie  unto 
salvation;  so  do  not  our  archbishops. "J  "  Here  is 
the  difference  between  our  adversaries  the  Papists 
and  us,"  says  Willet.  "  They  say  it  is  of  necessitie 
to  be  subject  to  the  Pope,  and  to  bishops  and  arch- 
bishops under  him,  as  necessarily  prescribed  in  the 
word;  but  so  doe  not  our  bishops  and  archbishops, 
which  is  a  notable  difference  between  the  bishops  of 
the  Popish  Church  and  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 
Let  every  Church  use  that  forme  which  best  fitteth 
their  state:  in  external  matters  every  Church  is  free, 
not  one  bound  to  the  prescription  of  another,  so  they 
measure  themselves  by  the  rule  of  the  word."§  And, 

*  Defense  of  the  Apology,  p.  129-130,  &c.  It  deserves  to  be 
remembered,  that  Strype  says,  "  it  was  composed  and  written  by  the 
reverend  father  as  the  public  confession  of  the  Catholic  and  Christian 
faith  of  all  Englishmen,  wherein  is  taught  our  consent  with  the  Ger- 
man, Helvetian,  French,  Scotch,  Genevan,  and  other  Reformed 
Churches."    Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  251. 

t  Strypc's  Whitgift,  p.  42. 

t  Defense  of  his  Aunswere,  p.  382. 

§  Willet's  Synopsis  Papismi,  Appendix  to  the  Fifth  General  Ques- 
tion. 


42 


LETTERS  ON 


says  Downam  to  a  Puritan  who  had  animadverted 
on  his  sermon,  "  the  Popish  opinion  is  farre  different 
from  that  which  I  hold;  for  they  hold  the  order  and 
superiority  of  bishops  to  be  jure  divino,  implying 
thereby  a  perpetual  necessitie  thereof.  Insomuch  that 
where  bishops  are  not  to  ordaine  they  thinke  there 
can  be  no  ministers  or  priests,  and  consequently  no 
church.  I  hold  otherwise.  Wherefore  my  opinion 
being  so  different  from  the  Popish  conceit,  who  seeth 
not  that  the  judgment  of  onr  divines  which  is  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Papists  is  not  opposed  to  mine?" 
Nor  was  the  difference  less  forcibly  characterised  by 
Dr.  Holland,  when  he  denounced  your  opinion,  as 
stated  by  Laud,  as  "  a  novell  Popish  doctrine."  If 
your  divines,  however,  till  the  days  of  Downam,  con- 
sidered that  opinion  as  "  a  Popish  conceit,"  and  "  a 
novel  Popish  doctrine,"  and  the  opposite  principle  as 
constituting  "  a  notable  difference"  between  your 
Church  and  the  Papists,  I  trust  you  will  not  consider 
me  as  wanting  in  charity,  if,  under  the  sanction  of 
such  high  and  venerable  authority,  I  represent  you  in 
the  character  which  they  would  unquestionably  have 
assigned  to  you,  had  they  been  living  at  present, 
namely,  as  a  patron  of  Popery,  and  to  express  my 
astonishment  that  you  and  your  followers  should  be 
allowed  to  continue  in  the  communion  of  your  Church. 

But  you  may  tell  me,  that  though  it  is  a  Popish,  it 
is  nevertheless  a  scriptural  doctrine,  for  the  Church  of 
which  we  read,  Eph.  ii.  20,  as  having  been  founded 
by  the  Apostles,  and  out  of  which  there  is  no  salva- 
tion, contained  in  it  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  and 
it  is  only  when  a  Church  resembles  the  Church  as  it 
was  then  constituted  in  the  orders  of  its  clergy,  and 
its  form  of  government,  that  it  is  entitled  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  Church  of  Christ.  You  must  prove,  how- 
ever, before  you  deduce  this  inference,  that  the  Church 
which  is  there  referred  to,  and  out  of  which  it  is 
declared,  in  other  passages,  there  is  no  salvation,  is 
the  visible  Church  possessing  in  all  respects  the  very 
form  of  external  government  which  was  at  first  estab- 
lished.   The  Church  of  England  at  the  time  of  the 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


43 


Reformation,  as  I  have  already  showed  you,  did  not 
think  so,  nor  was  it  the  opinion  of  any  of  the  Protes- 
tant Churches.  "  There  are  two  kyndes  of  govern- 
ment," said  Whitgift;  "the  one  invisible,  the  other 
visible;  the  one  spiritual!,  the  other  external!.  The 
invisible  and  spirituall  government  of  the  Church  is, 
when  God  by  his  spirite,  gyftes  and  ministerie  of  his 
worde,  doth  governe  it  by  ruling  in  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men,  and  directing  them  in  all  things 
necessarie  unto  everlasting  life.  This  kinde  of  gov- 
ernment indeed  is  necessarie  unto  salvation.  The 
visible  and  external  government  is  that  which  is  exe- 
cuted by  manne,  and  consisteth  of  external  discipline 
and  visible  ceremonies,  practised  in  that  Church." 
And  then,  after  remarking  that  "  the  worde  necessarie 
signified  eyther  that  without  the  which  a  thing  cannot 
be,  or  that  without  the  which  it  cannot  so  well  and 
conveniently  be,"  he  adds,  "  I  confesse,  that  in  a 
church  collected  together  in  one  place,  and  at  hbertie, 
government  is  necessarie  in  the  second  kind  of  neces- 
sitie,  but  that  any  one  kind  of  government  is  so  tieces- 
sarie,  that  ivithout  it  the  Church  cannot  be  saved,  I 
utterlie  denie."*  And  he  was  justified  in  doing  so, 
for  it  is  not  to  faith  produced  only  by  the  preaching 
of  a  diocesan  bishop,  or  of  clergymen  ordained  by 
him,  that  salvation  is  promised  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
to  true  faith  produced  by  the  preaching  of  any  pious 
ministers  who  have  received  their  orders  through  a 
regular  channel.  It  is  not  to  repentance  resulting 
from  the  instructions  only  of  Episcopalian  clergy- 
men deriving  their  orders  from  diocesan  bishops, 
that  forgiveness  is  promised  through  the  blood  of  the 
cross,  (Acts  iii.  19;  xi.  18;)  but  to  sincere  repentance, 
whoever  may  be  the  ministers  whose  impressive  state- 
ments and  touching  appeals,  accompanied  by  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  implanted  it  in  the 
heart.  And  it  is  not  to  holiness  attained  only  under 
the  ministry  of  Episcopalian  clergymen,  but  of  all 
evangelical  pastors,  that  the  Almighty  has  declared, 
Heb.  xii.  14,  that  the  individual  who  possesses  it  shall 

*  Defense  of  the  Aunswerc,  p.  81. 


44 


LETTERS  ON 


"  see  the  Lord."  But  perhaps  I  am  wrong  in  sup- 
posing that  you  will  admit  that  faith,  or  repentance, 
or  personal  holiness,  can  be  attained  without  the 
j)ale  of  Episcopalian  Churches,  and  that  to  your 
other  tenets  this  must  be  added,  (I  shall  be  glad  if  you 
disclaim  it,)  that  nothing  which  can  be  regarded  as 
spiritually  good  can  result  from  the  labours  of  Presby- 
terian ministers.* 

But  if  there  be  no  revealed  or  covenanted  hope  of 
salvation  to  the  members  of  a  church,  unless  she  con- 
tinue in  the  state  in  which  the  primitive  Church  was 
left  by  the  Apostles  as  to  the  orders  of  her  clergy, 
and  government,  and  worship,  is  there  no  reason  to 
fear  as  to  their  personal  salvation  to  the  ministers 
and  members  of  the  Church  of  England?  Does  she 
remain  in  the  state  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  both 
as  to  the  offices  and  distinctions  which  exist  among 
her  ministers  ?  The  most  eminent  individuals  who 
laboured  zealously  for  the  purification  of  the  Church, 
from  the  earliest  ages  till  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
would  not  have  thought  so,  for  they  have  declared  it 
as  their  opinion,  that  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  there 
were  only  two  orders  of  ministers  in  the  Church, 
bishops  or  presbyters,  whose  office  appeared  to  them 
to  be  the  same,  and  deacons,  and  that  there  ought 
still  to  be  no  more.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  the 
author  of  the  work  entitled  Aetates  Ecclesiae,  which, 
according  to  Flaccius  Illyricus,  was  written  long  be- 
fore the  Reformation. t    Such  was  the  opinion  of  the 

*  I  would  like  to  know  whether  Puseyites  believe  that  the  pious 
conversation  of  wives,  who  are  Presbyterians,  is  likely  to  win  their 
husbands  to  the  faith,  and  love,  and  obedience  of  the  Gospel,  accord- 
ing to  the  statement  of  Peter,  in  his  1st  Epistle,  iii.  1,  or  whether  it 
must  be  expected  to  fail,  because  they  have  never  had  Episcopal  bap- 
tism,  and  are  not  in  communion  with  Episcopalian  Churches.  And 
I  would  wish  also  to  be  informed,  whether  they  believe  the  conversa- 
tion of  pious  Presbyterians  can  do  no  good  to  others  in  health  or 
sickness,  or  when  they  happen  to  visit  them  on  their  beds  of  death. 
I  take  it  for  granted  that  they  are  persuaded  there  is  no  reason  to 
hope  that  the  preaching  of  the  most  pious  Presbyterian  ministers  can 
lead  to  the  conversion  of  a  single  sinner. 

t  "  Distinguitur  autem  juristis  ipsa  primitiva  ecclesia  in  primam 
et  secundam  unde  Dist.  93.  legimus,  &c.  The  Primitive  Church  is 
distinguished  by  the  jurists  into  the  first  and  second.    In  the  first 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


45 


celebrated  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  the  great  reformer 
of  his  day,  usually  denominated  Ricardus  Armacanus, 
who,  though  himself  a  dignified  Episcopalian,  bears 
a  striking  testimony  to  Presbyterian  principles,  as 
characterizing  the  Apostolic  Church,  for  he  observes, 
that  "  in  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  or  Apos- 
tles, no  difference  is  to  be  discovered  between  bishops 
and  simple  priests  who  are  called  Presbyters,  whence 
it  follows  that  their  power  in  all  things  is  the  same, 
and  they  are  equal  from  their  order."*  Such,  too, 
was  the  opinion  of  Wicklif,  the  harbinger  of  the 
Reformation  in  England,  for  one  of  his  principles, 
which  was  controverted  at  great  length  by  Wood- 
ford, was,  that,  "in  the  time  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
two  orders  of  clergy  were  reckoned  sufficient  for  the 
Church,  priests  and  deacons;  nor  were  there  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  any  such  distinctions  as  those  of 
a  pope,  patriarchs  and  bishops."t    And  what,  per- 

primitive  Church,  the  office  of  bishops  and  priests,  as  well  as  the 
names,  was  the  same.  But  in  the  second  primitive  Church,  the 
names  and  offices  begun  to  be  distinguished.  Therefore  the  names 
presbyter  and  bishop  were  entirely  of  similar  import,  and  their 
power  was  the  same,  for  the  churches  were  governed  by  a  common 
council  of  priests.  Therefore,  as  there  was  no  difference  from  the 
beginning,  the  prelates  ought  not  to  carry  themselves  too  haughtily 
above  the  priests." 

*  "  Non  invenitur  in  Scripturis  Evangclicis  aut  Apostolicis  aliqua 
differentia  inter  episcopos  et  simplices  sacerdotes  qui  appellantur 
Presbyteri,  &c.  Lib.  5.  ad  Quaest.  Armcnorum.  He  flourished  in 
the  fourteenth  century. 

t  "Quod  tempore  Apostoli  Pauli  sufficiebant  ecclcsia?  duo  ordines 
clcricorum,  sacerdos  et  diaconus,  ncc  fuit  tempore  Apostolorum  dis- 
tinctio  papa?,  patriarcharum,  episcoporum."  Woodford  quotes  against 
him  a  decree,  as  he  terms  it,  of  C  lemens  Romanus,  and  adds,  "  In 
quibus  verbis  sicut  Clemens  distinguit  inter  presbytcrum  et  diaco- 
num,  sic  inter  episcopum  et  presbyterum,"  and  prosecutes  the  argu- 
ment very  fully.  Sec  the  whole  disputation  in  the  Fasciculus  Rerum 
Expet.  et  Fugiend.,  published  at  Cologne,  in  1535,  by  Orthunius 
Gratius,  and  republished  by  Edward  Brown.  1600,  vol.  i.  p.  209, 
from  which  it  is  evident  that  Wicklif  must  have  been  a  Presbyterian, 
Henricus  dc  Jota  also,  or  according  to  others,  dc  Hcuta,  who  taught 
at  Vienna  in  1371,  and  who  is  highly  celebrated  by  Gerson,  Chancel- 
lor of  Paris,  asserts,  "  that  the  reservation  of  causes  to  the  popes  and 
bishops  was  a  matter  not  of  divine  but  human  appointment,  for  all 
priests  have  equally  the  power  of  the  keys.  Reservationem  istam 
casuum  jam  papis  et  episcopis  usitatam  non  divini,  sed  humani  juris 


46 


LETTERS  ON 


haps,  will  have  more  weight  with  you  than  the  opin- 
ion of  these  reformers,  as  they  appear  to  have  been 
Presbyterians,  even  Jewel  himself,  when  he  wrote 
his  Apology,  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  so;  for, 
says  he,  "  in  St.  Hierome's  time,  there  were  metro- 
politans, archbishops,  archdeacons,  and  others.  But 
Christ  appointed  not  these  distinctions  of  orders  from 
the  beginning."*  Here,  then,  is  one  point  of  very 
great  importance,  in  which  there  is  a  striking  differ- 
ence between  your  Church  and  the  Apostolic  Church. 

Again  does  your  Church  resemble  that  Church  in 
respect  to  her  ceremonies,  guarding  against  the  error 
which  was  pointed  out  by  the  Redeemer,  when  he 
said,  "  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doc- 
trines," in  regard  to  my  service,  "  the  commandments 

esse :  Omnes  enim  sacerdotes  aequale  jus  clavium  habere."  Is  not 
this  Presbytcrianism  ? 

Atto,  Bishop  of  Verceil  in  Italy,  who,  according  to  Ughellus, 
flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  says,  in  his  treatise 
on  the  judgment  of  bishops,  published  by  D'Achery  in  the  eighth 
vol.  of  his  Spicilegium,  "the  order  of  bishops  and  that  of  presbyters 
were  not  two  different  orders  in  Paul's  time,  but  were  distinguished 
afterwards." 

Francowitz,  or  Flaccius  Illyricus,  in  his  Catalogus  Tcstium  Veri- 
tatis,  fol.  1793,  tells  us,  that  Florentinus,  when  speaking  of  the  here- 
sies of  Petrus  de  Corbaria,  and  John  and  Michael  Cesanas,  of  the 
order  of  the  Minorites,  mentions  as  one  of  them,  that  "  all  priests,  of 
whatever  grade,  by  the  institution  of  Christ,  have  equal  authority, 
power  and  jurisdiction.  Quod  sacerdotes  omnes,  cujuscunque  gradus 
existant,  sunt  aequalis  authoritatis,  potestatis  et  jurisdictionis  insti- 
tutione  Christi."  They  lived  in  the  fourteenth  century.  The  copy 
of  the  Catalogus,  from  which  I  quote  this  and  some  of  the  other 
testimonies  to  Presbyterian  principles,  belonged  to  Archbishop  Leigh- 
ton. 

Marsilius  Patavinus,  who  lived  a.  d.  1324,  is  said,  in  the  Catalo- 
gus Testium  Vcritatis,  p.  488,  to  have  maintained  this  opinion  in  his 
treatise,  entitled,  Defensor  Pacis,  "  that  all  bishops  and  priests  are 
equal.    Omnes  episcopos  et  sacerdotes  esse  aequales." 

*  Defense  of  the  Apology,  p.  92.  "Concerning  this  work,"  says 
Strype,  (Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  490,)  "  three  great  princes  successively, 
Queen  Elizabeth,  King  James  and  King  Charles,  and  four  arch- 
bishops, were  so  satisfied  with  the  truth  and  learning  contained  in 
it,  that  they  enjoined  it  to  be  chained  up  and  read  in  all  parish 
churches  throughout  England  and  Wales." 

Mocket,  Archbishop  Abbot's  chaplain,  mentions  many  more  dis- 
tinctions among  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  than  Bishop 
Jewel. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


47 


of  men?"  Jewel  observes,  "The  old  father  S.  Augus- 
tine, complaineth  of  the  multitude  of  vain  ceremonies, 
wherewith  he  even  then  (beginning  of  the  fifth  centu- 
ry) saw  men's  minds  and  consciences  overcharged."* 
And  yet,  according  to  Hooper  and  Cecil,  you  have  a 
greater  number  of  them  in  the  Church  of  England 
than  were  to  be  found  either  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
or  in  the  Christian  Church  in  the  days  of  Augustine. 
"  Further,"  says  the  former, "  to  augment  the  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Churche,  and  bring  in  a  new  Judaisme  and 
Aaronicall  rites,  is  against  this  commandment,  (the 
fourth).  As  the  bishopes  hath  usyd  the  matter,  there 
be  more  ceremonies  in  the  Churche  of  Christ  than 
were  in  the  Churche  of  the  Jewes,  as  it  shall  easily 
apere  to  him  that  will  confer  our  Churche  with  the 
bookes  of  Moses."t  And  says  the  latter  to  a  noble 
Italian  at  Rome,  whom  he  wished  to  convert  from 
Popery,  "Yea,  as  for  external  discipline,  I  can  assure 
you,  our  Church  is  more  replenished  with  ecclesias- 
tical rites  than  was  the  primitive  Church  in  Jive 
hundred  years  after  Christ.  Insomuch  as  the  Church 
of  England  is,  by  the  Germans,  French,  Scots,  and 
others  that  call  themselves  reformed,  thought  to  be 
herein  corrupted,  for  retaining  so  much  of  the  rites  of 
the  Church  of  Rome. "J  But  if  this  is  really  the  case, 
(and  he  could  not  be  mistaken,)  it  constitutes  a  very 
great  and  serious  difference  between  the  worship  of 
your  Church  and  the  Apostolic  Church. § 

*  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,  part  5,  chap.  iii.  di vis.  5. 
t  Declaration  of  the  ten  holy  commandments. 
I  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  533. 

§  We  are  told  by  A'Lasco,  in  his  Treatise  de  Ordinatione  Eccle- 
siarum  Peregrinarum  in  Anglia,  published  a.  d.  1555,  and  dedicated 
to  Sigismund,  King  of  Poland,  that  Edward  the  Sixth  and  his  Coun- 
cil  were  anxious  to  accomplish  a  far  more  extensive  reformation  of 
the  Church  of  England  than  has  ever  been  effected.  "  When  I  was 
called  by  that  King,"  says  he,  "  and  when  some  laws  of  the  country 
stood  in  the  way,  that  it  was  not  possible  that  the  rites  of  public  di- 
vine worship  used  under  Popery  should  be  immediately  purged  out, 
though  it  was  what  the  King  himself  desired;  and  while  I  was  earn- 
estly standing  up  for  the  churches  of  the  foreigners,  at  length  it  was 
his  pleasure  that  the  public  rites  in  the  English  churches  should  be 
reformed  hi/  certain  degrees,  as  far  as  it  could  possibly  be  got  done  for 
the  laws  of  the  kingdom.    But  that  strangers,  who  were  not  so  strict- 


48 


LETTERS  ON 


You  restrict  your  clergy,  in  their  public  services,  to 
forms  of  prayer  which  were  never  employed  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  though  they  prevent  your  ministers 
from  applying  to  the  Spirit,  as  a  Spirit  of  grace  and 
supplications,  to  suggest  intercessions  to  them,  accord- 
ing to  this  part  of  his  blessed  character,  (Romans  viii. 
26,  27,)  which  they  may  present  for  their  people,  and 
though,  as  Bishop  Wilkins  remarks,  "prayer  by  book 
is  commonly  flat  and  dead,  and  has  not  that  life  and 
vigour  to  engage  the  affections,  as  when  it  proceeds 
immediately  from  the  soul  itself;  and  set  forms  do 
especially  expose  people  to  lip  service  and  formal- 
ity."*   And  he  might  have  added,  that  they  want 

ly  obliged  by  the  laws  of  the  country  in  this  matter,  should  have 
churches  granted  them,  wherein  they  might  freely  perform  all  things 
according  to  apostolical  doctrine  and  observation  only,  without  hav- 
ing any  regard  to  the  rites  of  the  country,  that  by  this  means  it 
would  come  to  pass  that  the  English  churches  would  be  excited  to  em- 
brace apostolical  purity,  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  states 
of  the  kingdom. 

"  The  king  himself,  from  his  great  piety,  was  both  the  chief  author 
and  defender  of  this  project.  For,  though  it  was  almost  universally 
acceptable  in  the  King's  Council,  and  though  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury  himself  promoted  the  thing  with  all  his  might,  yet  there  were 
some  who  took  it  ill,  and  would  have  showed  more  reluctance  to  it, 
had  not  the  King  given  them  a  repulse,  both  by  his  authority  and 
the  reasons  he  gave  for  this  design.  The  churches  of  strangers  being 
accordingly  allowed,  upon  condition,  or  rather  with  a  liberty,  that  all 
things  in  them  should  be  ordered  according  to  the  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles,  the  care  of  them,  by  the  authority  of  the  King 
and  Council,  was  committed  to  me,  and  I  was  commanded  to  choose 
such  colleagues  for  myself,  as  I  should  judge  fittest  for  that  service, 
that  their  names  might  be  inserted  in  the  King's  patent.  Cum  ego 
quoque  per  regem  ilium  vocatus  essem,"  &c. 

Such  is  the  statement  of  A'Lasco,  whom  Edward  and  his  counsel- 
lors denominated  in  the  patent,  "homo  propter  integritatem  et  inno- 
centiam  vitoe  et  morum,  et  singularem  eruditionem,  valde  Celebris." 
He  published  his  book  about  tour  years  afterwards  ;  and  his  state- 
ment accords  with  the  appointment  of  thirty-two  commissioners  by  Ed- 
ward, (of  whom  A'Lasco  was  one,)  to  draw  up  the  Reformatio  Legum 
Eeclesiasticarum.  That  work  was  stopped,  in  consequence  of  the 
death  of  the  King,  and  little  progress  was  made  in  the  reformation  of 
the  Church  under  Elizabeth.  Many  of  the  bishops,  during  the  reign 
of  that  Princess,  lamented  it  greatly;  but  it  gratified  the  Papists,  and 
is  still  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  to  them,  for  one  of  their  bishops 
declared  lately,  that  "  he  loved  the  Church  of  England,  because  she 
was  the  least  reformed  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches." 

*  Gift  of  Prayer,  by  Bishop  Wilkins,  p.  9,  10. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


49 


that  variety  which  is  suited  to  the  ever  varying  cir- 
cumstances both  of  the  private  Christian,  and  of  the 
Church  at  large ;  and  that  it  is  equally  uncomfortable 
to  hear  the  very  same  prayers  repeated  annually,  for 
forty,  or  fifty,  or  sixty  years,  as  it  would  be  to  hear 
the  very  same  sermons  repeated  annually  for  a  similar 
period.  Besides  the  prayer-book  you  use,  and  on 
which  you  will  suffer  no  alterations,  as  Edward  the 
Sixth  said  in  his  letter  to  the  Kentish  rebels,  is  just 
"the  old  Popish  service  translated  into  English," 
which  James  the  First,  you  know,  denominated  at 
one  time  '•'  an  ill-said  mass." 

In  administering  baptism,  you  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross  on  the  forehead  of  the  child,  though  it  was  nei- 
ther made  on  the  forehead  of  the  Saviour  at  his  bap- 
tism, nor  of  any  other  individual  who  is  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  though,  as  Barlow  acknow- 
ledges, in  his  account  of  the  conference  at  Hampton 
Court,  no  example  of  it  can  be  produced  before  the 
days  of  Tertullian,  when,  as  is  proved  by  the  author 
of  Ancient  Christianity,  Sir  Peter  King,  and  others, 
many  gross  superstitions  had  been  introduced  into  the 
Church.    And  if  you  tell  me  that  it  was  adopted  at  a 
very  early  period,  I  reply,  with  Bradshaw,  "  so  are 
many  other  Popish  traditions,  (for  the  mystery  of  ini- 
quity soon  began  to  work) ;  and  if  on  that  ground  we 
are  to  retain  it,  why  do  we  not  give  the  baptised  milk 
and  honey?  for  this  was  practised  along  with  the  other. 
Why  do  we  not  bring  offerings  for  the  dead?  for  Ter- 
tullian, the  first  of  the  fathers  that  ever  mentioned  the 
cross,  doth  establish  these  and  the  sign  of  the  cross  by 
one  and  the  self-same  warranty.    Besides,  if  upon 
the  fathers'  tradition  we  use  the  cross,  then  must  we 
receive  and  use  it  as  they  have  delivered  it  unto  us, 
that  is,  with  opinion  of  virtue  and  efficacy,  not  only 
in  the  act  of  blessing  ourselves,  and  in  expelling  oj 
devils,  but  even  in  the  consecration  of  the  blessed 
sacrament.  For  the  first,  Tertullian  is  witness,  saying, 
at  every  passage,  at  every  setting  forward,  at  every 
coming  in  and  going  out,  at  putting  on  of  our 
clothes,  shoes,  &c,  we  stamp  our  forehead  with  the 

4 


50 


LETTERS  ON 


sign  of  the  cross."*  And  surely,  if  you  make  the 
sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism  on  the  child's  forehead, 
because  the  fathers  did  it,  you  are  bound  equally  to 
make  it  on  your  own  forehead,  when  you  put  on  or 
off  your  hat,  or  coat,  or  any  part  of  your  dress,  or 
your  shoes;  and  for  the  very  same  purpose,  namely, 
to  chase  away  devils;  and  I  have  not  yet  heard  that 
you  have  come  so  far  as  this  in  your  imitation  of  the 
ancient  Church.  Nor  do  you  use  that  sign  even  in 
baptism  as  it  was  employed  by  the  fathers,  for,  as  he 
further  remarks,  "  it  is  apparent  that  Cyprian,  Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom,  and  others,  in  those  times,  did  con- 
secrate the  element  [or  water)  therewith,  and  did  not 
cross  the  child's  forehead,  but  referred  that  unto  the 
bishop's  confirmation,  so  that  our  crossing  the  in- 
fant's forehead,  and  not  the  element  of  baptism,  is  a 
meere  novelty"!  In  this  respect,  therefore,  you  differ 
both  from  the  apostolic  and  the  ancient  Church. 

*  Treatise  on  Worship  and  Ceremcnies,  p.  114. 

He  adds,  "for  chasing  of  devils,  Jerome  counselleth  Demetrius  to 
use  the  cross,"  (Epist.  ad  Demctrium ;)  "and  with  often  crossing 
guard  thy  forehead,  that  the  destroyer  of  Egypt  find  no  place  in  thee." 
Lactantius  saith,  (lib.  4,  cap.  24,)  "Christ's  followers  do  by  the  sign 
of  the  cross  shut  out  the  unclean  spirit."  Chrysostom,  on  Psalm  109, 
says,  "the  sign  of  the  cross  guardeth  the  mind;  it  taketh  revenge 
on  the  devil;  it  cureth  the  diseases  of  the  soul." 

t  "Neither  will  that  place  of  Tertullian  de  Resurrectione  Carnis 
prove  the  contrary."  "  The  flesh,"  says  he,  "  is  washed,  that  the 
soul  may  be  purged;  the  flesh  is  anointed,  that  the  soul  may  be  con- 
secrated ;  the  flesh  is  signed,  that  the  soul  may  be  guarded  ;  the  flesh 
is  shadowed  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  that  the  soul  may  be  by  the 
spirit  enlightened ;  the  flesh  doth  feed  on  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
that  the  soul  may  be  filled  and  fatted  of  God.  In  which  words  he, 
joining  together  diverse  ceremonies  of  the  Christians,  doth  indeed 
mention  the  signing  of  the  faithful;  but  it  may  be  as  well  referred 
to  confirmation,  expressed  by  imposition  of  hands,  as  to  baptism,  un- 
derstood by  washing  of  the  bod}',  and  that  on  beUer  reason,  for  it  is 
more  than  probable  that  the  sign  of  the  cross  was  not  yet  used  in  bap- 
tism, seeing  Justin  Martyr,  in  Defens  ad  Anton.,  and  Tertullian,  de 
Baptismo  et  de  Corona  Mililis,  do  describe  the  form  of  baptism  used 
in  those  times,  and  yet  make  no  mention  of  the  cross  therein,  which 
in  all  likelihood  they  would  not  have  omitted  if  it  had  been  used 
therein,  especially  Tertullian,  who  in  that  place  speaketh  of  the  cross 
as  used  out  of  baptism  in  the  ordinary  blessing  of  themselves." 

He  says,  in  his  Treatise  on  Kneeling  in  the  Sacrament,  p.  94,  of 
the  preceding  work,  that  "  Papists  themselves  call  the  Church  of 
England,  for  retaining  this  and  other  Popish  Ceremonies,  Puritan 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


51 


You  lay  the  stipulations  in  baptism,  not  on  the 
parents,  who  are  enjoined  by  the  Almighty  to  "bring 
up  the  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,"  but  on  god-fathers  and  god-mothers,  who 
seldom  see  them,  in  regard  to  which  even  the  Epis- 
copalian clergy  at  Aberdeen  confess,  "  we  have  no 
precept  orv example  of  it  in  the  Holie  Scripture;  yea, 
some  of  our  learned  divines  affirm  that  it  was  insti- 
tuted by  Pope  Higinus."* 

You  represent  every  one  who  is  baptised  as  regen- 
erated, or,  in  the  language  of  your  Catechism,  as 
"  made  thereby  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God, 
and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  And 
Archdeacon  Wilberforce  affirms,  that  "  the  seed  of 
grace,"  which  was  implanted  in  his  father  at  baptism, 
was  preserved;  while  his  father  himself  acknowledges, 
that,  till  he  met  with  Doddridge's  Rise  and  Progress 
of  Religion,  and  it  was  blessed  to  him  by  God,  he  was 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  And  yet  you  are  informed 
in  Scripture  that  Simon  Magus,  though  baptised  by 
an  Apostle,  whose  orders  surely  would  be  valid- 
continued  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  the  bond  of 
iniquity."  And  as  Frith  remarks,  "if  a  Jew  or  an 
infidel  (as  has  sometimes  been  the  case)  should  say 
that  he  dyd  beleve,  and  beleved  not  in  deede,  and 
upon  his  words  were  baptised  in  deede,  (for  no  man 
can  judge  what  his  heart  is,)"t  he  could  not  be  in  the 
state  described  in  your  Catechism,  for  it  is  distinctly 
stated,  that  while  he  who  believeth  shall  be  saved, 
"he  who  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

You  receive  the  communion  at  an  altar  like  the 
Papists,  and  not  at  a  table  like  Christ  and  his  Apos- 

Papistical,"  and  appeals  in  proof  of  it  to  the  Conccrtatio  Cathol. 
Ecclcs.  in  Argum. 

In  the  Almanac  Spiritual,  an  old  Waldensian  Tract,  published  by 
Leger,  in  his  Hist,  des  Eglises  Vaudois,  p.  65,  the  sign  of  the  cross 
in  baptism  is  condemned.  "  Le  signe  de  la  croix  sur  l'enfant  a  la 
poitrene  et  au  front."  And  the  Churches  of  the  Waldenses  were 
"the  cradle"  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation. 

*  Duplies  to  the  Answers  of  some  Reverend  Brethren  concerning 
the  Covenant,  p.  !)7. 

t  See  Ills  Myrrour  or  Looking-Glasse,  wherein  you  may  beholdf 
the  sacrament  of  Baptisme  described,  Works,  p.  91. 


52 


LETTERS  ON 


ties,  and  the  early  Christians,  and  you  take  it  kneeling, 
though  they  took  it  in  the  posture  which  was  common 
at  meals.  This  is  certainly  surprising,  since  as  Peter 
Martyr,  who  was  to  have  been  one  of  your  first  pro- 
fessors of  divinity,  says,  "  Kneeling  at  the  sacrament 
was  introduced  on  account  of  transubstantiation,  and 
the  real  presence."*  And  it  is  still  more  extraordinary 
in  a  Protestant  Church,  if  it  be  true,  as  is  mentioned 
in  the  notes  by  Alexander  de  Hales,  that  the  Pope, 
when  he  communicates,  does  it  sitting,  because  the 
Apostles  communicated  sitting.  In  this  respect  also 
you  differ  widely  from  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  are 
less  scriptural  in  your  worship  than  the  very  Pope.t 

*  Per  transubstantiationem  et  realem  presentiam  invecta  est  in 
ccclesiam.    Colum.  sect  21. 

t  "  At  the  least,"  says  the  author  of  the  Re-examination  of  the 
Five  Articles  of  Perth,  "  kneeling  was  left  free  in  the  days  of  King 
Edward  the  Sixth.  The  Papists  making  a  stir  about  want  of  reve- 
rence to  the  sacrament  at  the  second  reviewing  of  the  book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  kneeling  was  enjoyned  upon  this  reason  that  the  sacra- 
ments might  not  be  prophaned,  but  holden  in  a  holy  and  reverential 
estimation.  This  was  done  by  the  directors  and  contrivers  of  the 
book,  partly  to  pacify  the  Papists,  partly  because  their  judgment  was 
not  cleare  in  this  point." 

"  That  supper  had  all  silting  in  common  together,  saith  Chrysos- 
tom,  as  he  is  quoted  by  that  writer,  p.  19.  CEcumenius  hath  the 
like.  This  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper,  says  he.  He  meaneth 
that  supper  which  Christ  delivered  when  all  his  disciples  were 
present.  For  in  that  supper  the  Lord  and  all  his  servants  sat  to- 
gether." 

"  The  two  thousand  soldiers,"  he  remarks,  p.  24,  "who  were  re- 
conciled to  the  Emperor  Mauritius  about  the  year  590,  by  means 
of  Gregorius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  receaved  the  sacrament  sitting 
vpon  the  ground,  as  Evagrius  reporteth."    (Evag.  lib.  6,  cap.  13.) 

"  Dr.  Lindsay  alledgeth  the  like  done  to  the  Scottish  armie  at  Ban- 
nockburn,  in  the  dayes  of  King  Robert  Bruce."  (Soe  his  Defence,  p. 
53-54.) 

"Balsamon,  upon  the  nineteenth  canon  of  the  Concilium  Trullan- 
um,  saith,  the  devouter  sort,  upon  Saturday  at  midnight,  sat  in  the 
kirke,  and  did  communicate.  Alexander  de  Hales,  in  the  second  part 
of  his  tractate  concerning  the  masse,  sayth,  the  Pope  communicateth 
sitting,  in  remembrance  that  the  Apostles  at  the  last  supper  commu- 
nicated sitting.  Si  quaeratur  quare  Dominus  Papa  sedendo  commu- 
nicat,  &c. 

"  That  the  Waldenses  sat  will  appear  from  Balthazar  Lydius.  And 
Luther,  expounding  the  epistle  upon  St.  Stephen's  day,  saith,  Christ 
so  instituted  the  sacrament,  that  in  it  we  should  sit  at  the  sacrament. 
But  all  things  are  changed,  and  the  idle  ordinances  of  men  are  come 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACV. 


53 


You  bow  during  the  reading  of  the  Gospels  at  the 
name  Jesus,  and  not  at  the  name  Christ  or  Immanuel, 
or  any  of  the  other  names  of  the  Redeemer,  or  any  of 
the  names  of  the  other  persons  of  the  Godhead,  justi- 
fying your  adoration  of  that  particular  name,  which 
never  appears  to  have  received  that  external  token  of 
homage  in  the  apostolic  age,  by  an  erroneous  inter- 
pretation of  Philippians,  ii.  10.  And  yet  you  are 
aware  that  Archbishop  Usher,  one  of  your  most  dis- 
tinguished prelates  denied  that  the  practice  could  be 
founded  on  that  passage,  and  "wondered  at  some  learn- 
ed men's  assertions,  that  it  was  the  exposition  of  all 
the  fathers  upon  it.  And  as  the  wise  composers  of 
the  Liturgy  gave  no  direct  injunction  for  it  there,  so 
in  Ireland  he  withstood  the  putting  it  into  the  canons 
in  1634."*  "I  think  the  place  to  the  Philippians," 
says  Bishop  Babington,  "  not  well  understood,  hath 
and  doth  deceive  them.  The  place  is  borrowed  from 
the  Prophet  Isaiah,  and  therefore,  by  conference,  evi- 
dent that  the  word  name  signifies  power,  glory,  hon- 

in  place  of  divine  ordinances.  Zuinglius,  setting  down  the  forme  of 
celebration  used  at  Berne,  Zuricke,  Basile,  and  other  neighbour 
townes,  sayth,  sitting  and  harkening  with  silence  to  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  we  eat  and  drink  the  sacrament  of  the  supper.  We  have  put 
down  altars,"  says  A'Lasco,  "  and  use  a  table,  because  it  agreeth  bet- 
ter with  a  supper,  and  the  Apostle  hath  given  the  title  of  a  table  to 
denominate  the  Lord's  supper.  And  again,  the  terms  supper  and 
table  of  the  Lord  very  familiar  with  the  Apostle  Paul,  seerne  to  re- 
quire sitting  rather  standing,  kneeling  or  passing  by." 

"  The  Bishop  of  Chester,"  says  Calderwood,  in  his  strictures  on 
the  Perth  Assembly* p.  19,  admits  that  it  is  true  Christ  did  adminis- 
ter the  sacrament  in  a  kind  of  sitting  gesture,  and  that  in  the  same 
gesture  the  Apostles  did  receive  it."    Defense,  p.  248. 

"  Is  it  said  that  we  should  kneel  in  this  ordinance,  because  we 
worship  God  in  it  ?  Then  we  should  do  so  in  praise,  and  when  we 
swear  an  oath.  God  has  a  right  certainly  to  appoint  the  gestures 
which  he  requires  in  every  act  of  worship.  Is  it  alleged  that  it  is 
called  a  sacrifice,  and  therefore  we  should  kneel  ?  Upon  the  same 
principle,  then,  we  should  kneel  when  we  give  alms,  for  it  too  is  call- 
ed a  sacrifice,  or  when  we  praise,"  &c. 

"  Dionysius  Alexandrinus,"  says  Mr.  Anderson,  in  his  Answer  to 
the  Dialogue  between  the  Curate  and  the  Countryman,  p.  57,  "  is  the 
earliest  that  Dr.  Cave  can  find,  that  makes  mention  even  of  standing ; 
but  of  kneeling,  not  a  syllable  to  be  heard  for  many  hundred  years  after. 

*  Judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh  on  certain  points, 
p.  132. 


54 


LETTERS  ON 


our,  and  authority,  above  all  powers,  glories,  honours, 
and  authorities;  and  bowing  the  knee  signifieth  sub- 
jection, submission,  and  obedience  of  all  creatures  to  his 
beck,  rule  and  government,  for  what  maleriall  knees 
have  things  in  heaven,  hell,  fyc.  ?  This  knew  the  an- 
cient father  Origen,  and  therefore,  writing  on  the  14th 
of  the  Romans,  where  these  words  be,  again  saith, 
Non  est  carnaliter  hoc  accipiendum.  These  words 
are  not  to  be  taken  carnally,  as  though  things  in  hea- 
ven, as  the  sun,  moon,  angels,  &c.  had  knees  or  tongues, 
but  that  all  things  shall  be  subject  to  him."*  And  says 
Dr.  Fulk,  in  his  Reply  to  the  Rhemists,  "it  is  certain 
that  the  bowing  of  the  knee  at  the  sound  of  the  name 
of  Jesus,  as  it  is  used  in  Popery,  (and  it  is  the  same  in 
your  Church,  and  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,) 
is  not  commanded  nor  prophesied  in  this  place,  (Phil, 
ii.)  but  it  pertaineth  to  the  subjection  of  all  creatures 
to  the  judgment  of  Christ,  when  not  only  Turks  and 
Jews,  which  now  yield  no  honour  to  Jesus,  but  even 
the  devils  themselves  shall  be  constrained  to  acknow- 
lege  that  he  is  their  Judge."  And  he  adds,  "  Capping 
or  kneeling  at  the  name  of  Jesus  is  superstitiously 
used  in  Popery,  in  sitting  and  not  veiling  at  the  name 
of  Christ,  Emanuel,  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  bowing  only  at  the  name  of  Jesus." 
And  yet  such  is  the  practice  which  is  followed  by  your 
Church,  though,  while  you  bow  with  the  knee  when 
that  name  is  mentioned,  you  do  not  confess  with  the 
tongue  that  Jesus  is  Lord;  and  in  this,  as  well  as  the 
multitude  of  your  other  ceremonies,  of  which  Cecil 
speaks,  you  resemble  the  Popish  but  differ  very  wide- 
ly from  the  Apostolic  Church.t 

*  See  him  on  the  Creed,  p  169. 

t  It  is  plain  from  Bishop  Burnet's  Sermon  before  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1688,  and  his  Letters,  p.  46,  that  a  number  of  the  first 
Protestant  bishops  were  anxious  to  have  many  of  these  ceremonies 
abolished,  but  did  not  succeed.  And  says  Strype,  (Annals,  vol.  i.  p. 
162 — 164.)  Parker,  Grindal,  Cox,  Sandys  and  others,  urged  a  num- 
ber of  arguments  to  Elizabeth  for  laying  aside  altars,  and  using  ta- 
bles in  the  communion,  as  approaching  most  nearly  to  the  institution 
of  Christ,  but  she  would  not  listen  to  them. 

Bishop  Pilkington,  in  a  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  (Append, 
to  Strype's  Parker,  p.  41,)  gives  the  following  account  of  the  reasons 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


55 


And  omitting  many  other  things  on  which  it  would 
be  easy  to  enlarge,  does  the  extent  of  your  bishoprics 
correspond  to  that  of  the  bishoprics  in  the  early  Church, 
even  admitting  that  their  bishops  were  diocesan  pre- 
lates? This,  you  must  be  sensible,  is  a  point  not  only 
of  great,  but  of  paramount  importance;  for,  if  you  as- 
sign to  your  bishops  an  amount  of  duty  which  it  is 
impossible  for  them  to  perform,  and  not  only  twenty 
or  thirty,  but  even  a  hundred  times  more  than  was 
expected  from  any  of  the  primitive  bishops,  you  an- 
nihilate completely  the  efficiency  of  their  office,  and 
have  bishops  only  in  name.  And  yet  such  is  the  case 
with  almost  the  whole  of  yonr  bishoprics.  In  Philip- 
pi  alone,  where  the  number  of  Christians  could  not  be 
great,  we  are  informed,  (Philippians,  i.  1,)  that  "  there 
were  several  bishops."  Bishop  Burnet  acknowledges 
that  Cenchrea,  the  seaport  of  Corinth,  formed  a  bish- 
opric distinct  from  that  of  Corinth,  and  that  the  little 
village  of  Bethany,  about  a  mile  from  Jerusalem,  had 
a  bishop  of  its  own.*  And  Fuller  confesses,  that  a 
long  time  afterwards,  "  some  of  the  bishops'  seats  in 
Palestine  were  such  poor  places  as  they  were  ashamed 
to  appear  in  a  map.  For  in  that  age  bishops  had  their 
sees  at  poor  and  contemptible  villages."t  The  bish- 
opric of  Polycarp  was  so  small,  that  he  could  be  ac- 

why  so  many  Popish  ccremonis  Lave  been  retained  by  the  Church 
of  England.  "  They  have  so  long  continued,"  says  he,  "  and  pleased 
Poperic,  which  is  beggerlie  patched  upp  of  al  sorts  of  ceremonies, 
that  they  culd  never  be  rotcd  out  sins,  even  from  many  professors  of 
the  truth."  And  said  Bishop  Parkhurst  to  Gualter,  (Strype's  An- 
nals, vol.  ii.  p.  186,)  "Would  to  God  once  at  last  al  the  English  peo- 
ple would  in  good  earnest  propound  to  themselves  to  follow  the 
Church  of  Zuric,  (Presbyterian)  as  the  most  absolute  pattern."  But 
how  much  more  happy  would  it  have  been  for  the  church  of  England 
in  the  present  day,  if  she  had  followed  the  model  proposed  by  Hooper 
in  his  Treatise  entitled  the  Declaration  of  Christ  and  his  Offices. 
"  It  is  no  rcproache  of  the  dead  man,"  said  he,  "  but  mync  opinion 
unto  all  the  world  that  the  Scripture  solely  and  the  Apostelles'  Churche 
is  to  be  folowed,  and  no  man's  authoritie,  be  he  Augustine,  Tertullian, 
or  other  cherubim  or  seraphim.  Unto  the  rules  and  canones  of  Scrip- 
tures must  man  trust,  and  rcforme  his  errors  thereby,  or  else  he  shall 
not  reform  himself,  but  rather  deform  his  consciens." 

*  See  his  Observations  on  the  1st  and  2d  Apostolic  Canons,  p.  48. 

+  History  of  the  Holy  War,  p.  46. 


56 


LETTERS  ON 


quainted  by  name  with  the  different  individuals  who 
were  tinder  his  superintendence.  "  Let  your  assem- 
blies," said  Ignatius  to  him,  "  be  more  frequent ;"  or 
as  it  is  rendered  by  Archbishop  Wake,  "  let  them  be 
more  full;  inquire  after  all  by  name;  despise  not  the 
man-servants  nor  maid-servants;  but  let  not  these  be 
purled  up  with  this  circumstance."*  And  in  the 
extensive  diocese  of  Neocsesarea,  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  there  were  only  seventeen  Christians, 
and  these  probably  all  residing  in  the  city.  In  the 
time  of  Cyprian,  Sage  admits  that  there  were  only 
eight  presbyters  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Carthage, 
three  of  whom,  on  one  occasion,  voted  for  him,  and 
one  against  him.t  In  the  time  of  Cornelius,  in  the 
third  century,  there  were  only  forty-six  presbyters  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  all  of  whom,  according  to  Dod- 
wel,  did  not  preach;  and  even  in  the  fourth  century, 
according  to  Optatus,  it  contained  little  more  than 
forty  parishes,:};  or  a  considerably  smaller  number  than 
in  the  Scottish  Presbytery  of  Glasgow,  who  are  under 
one  moderator  or  president.  Victor  Uticensis  says, 
that  in  the  fifth  century  there  were  nearly  as  many 
bishops  as  there  were  parishes  in  one  of  the  provinces 
of  Africa;  and  Bishop  Burnet  allows  that  in  the  time 
of  St.  Augustine  there  were  about  five  hundred  bish- 
ops in  a  very  small  district.  §  And  if  it  be  a  fact,  as 
is  stated  by  Dr.  Hammond,  on  the  authority  of  Ter- 
tullian  and  Justin  Martyr,  that  the  early  Christians 
received  the  Eucharist  from  the  hand  of  the  bishop, 
it  is  evident  that  his  charge  could  not  be  large. ||  But 

*  n&xr&Tsgcv  r»(i)s^!u  ytt&Baeat,  &c.  "  Where  he  evidently  re- 
commends  to  him  to  examine,  at  their  usual  meetings,  into  the  state 
of  every  individual  who  was  under  his  care,  and  not  merely,  as  is 
alleged  by  Sclater  in  his  Original  Draught  of  the  Primitive  Church, 
p.  79,  "  to  matriculate  them  in  a  register."  The  latter  circumstance, 
moreover,  would  have  been  much  less  fitted  to  elate  the  men  and 
maid  servants  than  the  special  notice  which,  o.n  the  former  supposi- 
tion, Ignatius  exhorted  him  to  take  of  them  at  their  public  meetings. 

t  Vindication  of  the  Principles  of  the  Cyprianic  Age,  p.  348. 

t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  6,  cap.  43.  Optatus  contra  Parmen. 
lib.  2,  40. 

6  Conference,  p.  348. 

II  "Sic  tt  Tertullianus  de  Cor.  Mil.    Non  de  a'iorum  quara  de 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


57 


while  such  was  the  extent  of  the  primitive  bishoprics, 
how  different  is  the  size  of  most  of  your  dioceses! 
Calderwood  remarks,  that  "  the  bishopric  of  Lincoln 
hath  devoured  many  bishoprics  which  were  in  the 
time  of  the  Saxons,  and  howbeit  it  hath  been  greatly 
impaired,  yet  there  are  twelve  hundred  and  forty- 
seven  parish  churches  in  it  at  this  day."*  "  The  bish- 
oprick  of  York,"  too,  he  says,  "  hath  devoured  many 
lesser  bishoprics  next  adjacent,  as  Cambden  relateth 
in  his  Britannia."  And  the  bishopric  of  London  con- 
tains a  million  and  a  half  of  souls,  all  of  whom,  with 
their  clergy,  are  placed  under  the  oversight  and  spir- 
itual jurisdiction  of  a  single  individual,  which  is  as 
great  an  absurdity  is  if  there  were  only  a  single 
physician,  however  eminent,  to  watch  over  their 
health,  and  cure  their  diseases,  or  a  single  magistrate 
or  judge  to  administer  justice  to  them,  in  matters 
which  affected  their  temporal  interests.  The  same 
observation  applies  to  many  of  the  other  bishoprics, 
the  duties  of  which  are  far  beyond  the  powers  of  the 
best  of  your  prelates.  And  as  you  will  not  contend 
that  any  of  them  are  possessed  of  a  hundred  times 
more  mental  or  physical  energy,  or  learning,  or  piety, 
than  Polycarp,  or  Irenaeus,  or  Cyprian,  or  Cornelius, 
while  they  have  a  hundred  times  more  work,  you  are 
bound  to  admit  that  this  also  is  a  point  fraught  with 
the  most  injurious  consecmences  to  religion,  in  which 
you  have  departed  very  grievously  from  the  more 
judicious  arrangements  of  the  early  Church. 

prncsidentium  manu  Eucharistiam  sumimus,  quod  idem  sub  7rgwraTw 
nomine  affirmat  Justinus  Dissert.  3,  cap.  7,  par.  5,  et  Dissert.  4, 
cap  17,  par.  14."    Illud  autem  a  Tertulliano,  &c. 

*  See  his  English  edition  of  his  Altar  of  Damascus,  p.  84,  which 
lie  afterwards  enlarged  and  published  in  Latin.  My  friend,  the  late 
Dr.  Andrew  Thomson  of  Edinburgh,  was  in  error  when  he  said,  in 
his  life  of  Calderwood  in  Brewster's  Encyclopedia,  that  the  only  copy 
of  the  English  edition  in  existence  was  one  which  belonged  to  our 
mutual  friend,  Dr.  McCrie,  as  there  is  at  least  another  belonging  to 
the  University  of  Glasgow,  from  which  I  have  taken  the  above  quo- 
tation.   It  is  a  small  octodecimo. 

The  d  iocese  of  Lincoln  contains  still,  1  believe,  one  thousand  and 
seventy  parishes,  or  as  many  as  there  are  in  the  whole  of  Scotland, 
and  all  under  the  superintendence  of  one  bishop. 


5S 


LETTERS  ON 


I  have  only  further  to  remark,  that  in  addition  to 
the  numerous  and  overwhelming  duties  of  their  spi- 
ritual function,  you  impose  upon  them  others,  as 
British  peers,  when  they  attend  in  Parliament,  and 
deliberate  on  important  political  questions,  which 
must  secularise  their  minds,  involve  them  unnecessa- 
rily in  civil  discussions,  and  alienate  a  considerable 
portion  of  that  time  which  ought  to  be  devoted 
entirely  to  their  sacred  vocation.  And  yet  nothing 
can  be  more  contrary  to  the  injunctions  of  Scripture, 
which  calls  upon  them  to  "  give  themselves  wholly'''' 
to  the  latter;  or  to  the  apostolic  canons,  the  eighth  of 
which  declares,  "  we  have  already  decreed  that  a 
bishop  or  presbyter,  or  deacon,  ought  not  to  interfere 
in  public  administrations;  but  ought  to  employ  him- 
selfentirely  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  Either,  there- 
fore, let  him  be  persuaded  not  to  do  so,  or  let  him  be 
deposed."*  Nothing,  too,  is  more  strongly  repro- 
bated by  your  Reformers,  though,  as  Cartwright  re- 
marks, "if  they  had  to  exercise  both  offices,  it  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  tyme, — because  the  cloudes  which 
Popery  had  overcast  our  land  with  could  not  be  so 
quickly  put  to  fiight."t  "  They  know,"  says  Hooper, 
"  that  the  primitive  Churche  had  no  souch  bishops  as 
be  now  a  daie,  as  examples  testifie,  until  the  time  of 
Silvester  the  First. "t  "  Looke  upon  the  Apostles 
cheffelie,  and  upon  all  their  successoures  for  the  space 
of  four  hundred  years,  and  then  thou  shalt  se  good 
bishoppes,  and  souch  as  diligentlie  applied  that  pain- 
ful office  of  a  bishope  to  the  glorie  of  God,  and  honour 
of  the  realmes  they  dwelt  in,  for  they  applied  all  the 
wilt  they  had  unto  the  vocation  and  ministerie  of  the 
Churche.  Our  bishopes  have  so  mouch  witt,  they 
can  rule  and  serve,  as  they  say,  in  boothe  states  of 
the  Churche,  and  also  in  the  civile  policie,  when  one 

*  Et/o-xotsc  »  ,Tgs3-/3uTS£s<',  n  Slftuwsj  &c  Consult  tlic  notes  of  Zona- 
ras  on  this  canon.  It  is  mentioned  also  by  Cyprian  in  his  Treatise 
de  Lapsis,  p.  278,  as  one  of  the  sins  of  his  time,  which  had  provoked 
God  to  send  a  persecution  on  the  Church. 

t  Second  Reply  to  Whitgift,  p.  30. 

t  Treatise  on  the  Commandments,  p.  182. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


59 


of  them  is  more  than  any  man  is  able  to  satisfie,  let 
him  do  all  waies  his  best  diligens."*  "  They  are 
otherwise  occupied,"  says  Latimer;  "some  in  King's 
matters,  some  of  the  Privie  Councell,  some  are  Lord's 
of  the  Parliament.  Is  this  their  duetie  ?  Is  this 
their  office?"]  And  says  Jewel,  after  stating  that 
"  the  bishop's  charge  is  to  preach,  to  minister  sacra- 
ments, to  order  priests,  to  excommunicate,  absolve, 
&c,  you  must  remember,  M.  Harding,  that  all  other 
privileges,  (as  Lords  of  Parliament,)  passed  amto  the 
clergie  from  the  Prince,  and  not  from  God;  for 
from  the  beginning  you  know  it  was  not  so. "%  So 
sensible,  accordingly,  were  the  other  Protestant  states, 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  of  the  incompatibility 
of  such  power  with  the  office  of  the  clergy,  that  they 
provided  against  it;  and  the  only  prelates  of  whom 
I  have  ever  heard,  who  would  have  had  leisure  to 
exercise  it,  if  it  had  been  lawful,  were  these  bishops 
among  the  Scots  Episcopalians,  who  were  ordained 
by  Dr.  Ross  before  his  death,  without  any  diocese, 
(for  there  was  none  to  give  them,)  and  merely  to 
keep  up  the  succession.  "Their  warmest  admirers," 
says  the  late  Dr.  Campbell  of  Aberdeen,  "  have  de- 
nominated them  Utopian  bishops;  and  in  their  farci- 
cal consecration  by  the  Doctor  and  others,  they  were 
solemnly  made  the  depositaries  of  no  deposit,  com- 
manded to  be  diligent  in  do-ing  no  work,  assiduous 
in  teaching  and  governing  no  people,  and  presiding 
in  no  church — in  short,  they  were  husbands  married 
to  no  wives."§ 

If  this  letter  had  not  already  been  too  far  extended, 
I  might  notice  your  want  of  a  godly  discipline,  which, 
as  Burnet  admits,  is  "  owned  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Office  of  Commination,"  and  which,  though  you  have 
been  praying  for  it  annually  on  Ash  Wednesday  since 
the  days  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  you  have  never  yet 

*  Treatise  on  the  Commandments,  p.  184. 
t  Sermon  on  the  Plough,  fol.  12. 

t  Defense  of  the  Apology,  p.  550.  See,  too,  the  Apology  itself, 
part  v.  chap.  3,  divis.  7. 

§  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  p.  355. 


60 


LETTERS  ON 


obtained.  I  might  have  adverted  to  the  practice  of 
your  bishops  in  transferring  their  power  of  juris- 
diction to  lay-chancellors,  in  regard  to  which,  it  is 
remarked  by  Bishop  Bedel,  that  "  it  is  one  of  the 
most  essential  parts  of  a  bishop's  duty  to  govern  his 
flock,  and  to  inflict  spiritual  censures  on  obstinate 
offenders,  and  he  can  no  more  delegate  this  power  to 
a  layman,  than  he  can  delegate  a  power  to  baptize 
and  ordain."*  And  even  Whitgift  admits  that  the 
power  of  excommunication  "  was  in  the  beginning 
joyntly  in  the  bishop,  dean  and  chapter  alone;"  that 
afterwards  "  through  custom,  it  was  appropriated  to 
the  bishop,  and  that  it  was  solely  by  the  authority  of 
the  civil  lawes"  that  he  was  latterly  permitted  to 
devolve  it  on  an  official  or  vicar-general,  chosen  from 
the  laity. t  And  with  respect  to  the  visitations  of 
archdeacons,  it  is  confessed  by  Bishop  Burnet,  that 
"  they  were  an  invention  of  the  later  ages,  in  which 
the  bishops,  neglecting  their  duty,  cast  a  great  part 
of  their  care  upon  them.  Now,"  he  adds,  "  their 
visitations  are  only  for  form  and  for  fees;  and  they 
are  a  charge  upon  the  clergy;  so  when  this  matter  is 
looked  into,  I  hope  archdeacons,  with  many  other 
burdens  that  lay  heavy  on  the  clergy,  shall  be  taken 
away. "J  It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  add  to  these 
details;  and  I  shall  only  further  remark,  that  if, 
according  to  your  opinion,  there  must  be  a  resem- 
blance in  great  and  leading  points  between  any 
Church  in  the  present  day  and  the  primitive  Church, 
before  the  former  can  be  entitled  to  the  name  of  a 
Church,  and  its  members  have  any  covenanted  hope 

*  See  his  Considerations  for  better  establishing  the  Church  of 
England. 

t  Strype's  Whitgift,  p  93,  and  Appendix,  p.  33. 

t  History  of  his  OwnTimes,  vol.  ii  p.  642.  He  says  also,  p.  636, 
"  No  inconvenience  could  follow  on  laying  aside  surplices,  and  regu- 
lating cathedrals,  especially  as  to  the  indecent  way  of  singing  prayers, 
and  of  laymen  reading  the  Litany.  All  bowings  to  the  altar  have  at 
least  an  ill  appearance,  and  are  of  no  use  ;  the  excluding  parents 
from  being  sponsors  in  baptism,  and  requiring  them  to  procure 
others,  is  extremely  inconvenient,  and  makes  that  to  be  a  mockery, 
rather  than  a  solemn  sponsion,  on  too  many." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY.  61 

of  salvation,  it  suggests  considerations  which  are  fitted 
to  awaken  very  painful  feelings  in  the  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Church  of  England. 
I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  IV. 

Extracts  from  the  Oxford  Tracts  asserting  the  doctrines  of  Puseyite  Episco- 
pacy to  be  the  doctrines  ofScripture. — A  contrary  opinion  avowed  by  the 
whole  of  the  Bishops  and  clergy  who  were  zealous  for  the  spiritual 
improvement  of  the  Church  for  five  hundred  years  belbre  the  Reforma- 
tion, by  the  whole  of  the  Protestant  Churches  at  that  memorable  period, 
and  by  eight  thousand  Protestant  ministers,  who  subscribed  the  Articles 
of  Smalkald,  which  declare  that  bishops  are  not  superior  to  presbyters 
by  divine  right. — Improbability  that  these  distinguished  individuals  and 
the  whole  Protestant  Churches  were  wrong,  and  Puseyite  Episcopalians 
right. 

Reverend  Sir, — I  have  referred,  in  the  conclusion 
of  the  preceding  letter,  to  the  acknowledgment  which 
has  been  annually  made  by  your  Church  for  nearly 
three  hundred  years,  of  her  want  of  "  a  godly  disci- 
pline." And  justly  may  she  do  so,  for  it  must  be 
evident  to  any  one  who  reflects  for  a  moment  on  the 
small  number  of  individuals  who  are  entrusted  with 
the  superintendence  of  her  ministers  and  members, 
and  who  alone  have  the  power  to  correct  the  errors 
and  heresies  of  the  one,  and  the  immoralities  of  the 
other,  that  all  which  she  possesses  of  this  important 
privilege,  so  essential  to  the  spiritual  prosperity  of  a 
Church,  is  little  more  than  the  name.  I  admit  the 
respectability  of  many  of  her  bishops,  but  I  would 
ask  any  candid  and  impartial  judge,  whether  twenty- 
seven  prelates,  or  rather  twenty-seven  lay-chancellors, 
can  exercise  such  an  oversight  of  seventeen  thou- 
sand clergy,  as  to  their  principles  and  conduct,  and 
about  sixteen  millions  of  laity,  or  at  least  the  large 
proportion  of  them  who  belong  to  your  communion, 
as  was  done  by  the  rulers  of  the  primitive  Church 


62 


LETTERS  OX 


over  her  ministers  and  members,  and  as  is  indispen- 
sable to  the  welfare  of  every  Church?  And  yet  such 
is  the  whole  amount  of  superintendence  which  is  pro- 
vided in  your  Church  for  this  important  end,  and 
which,  if  Episcopalian  church  government,  as  has 
often  been  alleged,  be  far  better  fitted  than  Presby- 
terian polity  for  preventing  schism,  and  promoting 
orthodoxy,  and  unity,  and  spirituality,  ought  to  ren- 
der your  Church  the  most  sound  and  united  and 
spiritual  Church  that  is  to  be  met  with  in  Britain. 

But  how  does  the  actual  state  of  your  Church  cor- 
respond with  these  anticipations?  So  far  from  being 
free  from  schism  and  discord,  and  remarkable  for 
her  unity,  is  she  not  torn  with  dissensions,  which 
are  spreading  further  and  further,  from  day  to  day, 
throughout  the  whole  of  your  cities  and  towns  and 
parishes?  Nor  do  they  relate  merely  to  externals, 
like  those  which  divide  some  other  Churches,  but  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  religious  truth  and 
Scriptural  Christianity.  And  in  place  of  the  exercise 
of  a  godly  discipline  toward  those  who  are  infusing 
into  her  some  of  the  worst  and  most  deadly  principles 
of  Popery,  and  who  are  attempting  to  overthrow  her 
as  a  Protestant  Church,  not  a  single  bishop  has  put 
forth  his  power  to  expel  these  heretics,  and  cut  them 
off  from  the  body  whose  spiritual  health  they  are 
seriously  injuring.  Yes,  sir,  you  are  allowed  to  retain 
your  professorship,  though,  by  your  own  confession, 
you  prostrated  yourself  lately  in  a  Popish  chapel  at 
the  elevation  of  the  host.  And  Mr.  Newman  and 
others  retain  their  livings,  though  they  have  been 
pleading  for  the  mass,  and  recommending  the  resto- 
ration of  auricular  confession,  and  advocating  re-union 
to'  the  Church  of  Rome.  What  would  the  spirits  of 
Cranmer  and  Latimer  say  of  such  conduct,  if  they 
were  permitted  to  speak  to  us?  And  in  what  light 
would  it  have  been  viewed  by  Cecil  and  Walsing- 
ham,  who  gloried  in  your  Church  as  the  bulwark  of 
Protestantism?  But  perhaps  it  does  not  arise  from 
any  want  of  fidelity  on  the  part  of  your  prelates,  but 
from  their  want  of  power,  and  the  utter  insufficiency 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


63 


of  Episcopalian  church  government  to  correct  such 
an  evil.  How  different  was  the  course  which  was 
pursued  a  few  years  ago  by  the  Church  of  Scotland 
towards  Mr.  Irving  and  his  followers,  when,  after 
endeavouring  in  vain  to  reclaim  them  from  their 
heresies,  she  deposed  them  from  the  ministry,*  and 
arrested  their  errors  within  the  pale  of  the  establish- 
ment. Happy  would  it  be  for  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  cause  of  Protestantism  if  similar  measures 
were  adopted  by  your  bishops;  and  never  was  there 
a  time  when  it  was  more  imperatively  the  duty  of 
her  pious  members  to  labour  and  pray  that  the  Lord 
would  restore  to  her  a  godly  and  vigorous  and  salu- 
tary discipline. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  apparent  defects  and  im- 
perfections in  the  constitution  and  discipline  of  your 
National  Church,  there  is  one  thing  you  allege  of  the 
very  highest  importance,  in  which  she  has  a  decided 
advantage  over  Presbyterian  Churches.  Her  clergy, 
you  affirm,  having  derived  their  orders  from  diocesan 
bishops,  in  an  uninterrupted  series  from  the  Apostles 
of  Christ,  must  be  considered  as  his  ministers,  and  her 
ordinances  as  his  ordinances,  and  her  members  as  his 
members,  children  of  God,  and  inheritors  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  But  the  ministers  of  these  Churches 
having  received  their  orders  only  from  Presbyters, 
who,  in  your  opinion,  had  no  right  to  bestow  them, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  invested  with  that  sacred  and 
venerable  character,  nor  can  their  sacraments  have 
any  virtue,  nor  their  members  any  covenanted  title  to 
salvation.  And  so  far  from  acknowledging  them  as 
Christian  Churches,  you  represent  them  as  occupying 
the  very  same  position  with  the  temple  of  Samaria, 
which  was  not  recognised  by  the  God  of  Israel,  and 
denounce  their  clergy,  when  they  ordain  others  to  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  as  involved  in  the  guilt,  and 

*  Presbyterians  do  not  believe  in  the  indelibility  of  the  clerical 
character,  as  maintained  by  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Church 
of  England,  but  think,  that  if,  ;is  is  stated,  Acts  i.  25,  even  an  Apostle 
"  fell  from  his  office  by  transgrcssiott"  the  same  111111";  may  happen 
to  an  inferior  minister. 


64 


LETTERS  ON 


likely  to  be  subjected  to  the  doom  of  Corah,  Dathan 
and  Abiram,  who  wished  to  extend  the  powers  of  the 
priesthood  to  the  whole  of  the  heads  of  the  families 
of  Israel. 

That  I  may  not,  however,  appear  to  charge  you 
with  sentiments  which  you  do  not  really  entertain,  I 
beg  to  appeal  to  the  following  extracts  from  the  Ox- 
ford Tracts,  to  which  I  have  reason  to  believe  that 
you  are  a  principal  contributor. 

"  It  is  not  merely  that  Episcopacy  is  a  better  or 
more  scriptural  form  than  Presbyterianism,  (true  as 
this  may  be  in  itself,)  that  Episcopalians  are  right  and 
Presbyterians  are  wrong,  but  because  the  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  have  assumed  a  power  which  was 
never  intrusted  to  them.  This  is  a  standing  condem- 
nation from  which  they  cannot  escape,  except  by  arti- 
fices of  argument,  which  will  serve  equally  to  protect 
the  self  authorised  teachers  of  religion."* 

"  Samaria  has  set  up  its  rival  temple  among  us. — 
Had  not  the  Ten  Tribes  the  school  of  the  prophets, 
and  has  not  Scotland  at  least  the  Word  of  God  ?  Yet 
what  would  be  thought  of  the  Jew  who  maintained 
that  Jeroboam  and  his  kingdom  were  in  no  guilt? 
Consider  our  Lord's  discourse  with  the  woman  of 
Samaria:  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what;  we  know 
what  we  worship.  Can  we  conceive  his  making  light 
of  the  difference  between  Jew  and  Samaritan  ?"t 

v<  The  parties  which  are  separated  from  and  oppo- 
sed to  the  Church,  may  be  arrayed  into  three  classes: 
1.  those  who  reject  the.  truth;  2.  those  who  teach  a 
part,  but  not  the  whole  trutb ;  3.  those  who  teach 
more  than  the  truth;  i.  e.  1st,  Socinians,  Jews,  Deists, 
Atheists ;  2d,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Metho- 
dists, Baptists,  Quakers;  3d,  Romanists,  Swedenbor- 
gians,  Southcotians,  Irvingites. 

"  Churchman,  whoever  thou  art,  that  readest  the 
follies  and  errors  of  the  second  and  third  classes,  into 
which  the  pride  of  man's  heart,  and  the  wiles  of  Sa- 
tan, have  beguiled  so  many  of  those  who  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  first,  give  to  God  great 


»  Oxford  Tracts,  No.  7,  p.  2. 


t  No.  47,  p.  4. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


65 


thanks  for  having  preserved  you  a  member  of  the  one 
holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  which  teaches 
the  way  of  God  in  truth,  neither  handling  the  word 
of  God  deceitfully  like  the  second  class,  nor  following 
cunningly  devised  fables  like  the  third ;  and  (with 
reference  to  the  second  and  third  classes,  as  well  as 
the  first,)  pray  that  God  would  be  pleased  so  to  turn 
their  hearts,  and  fetch  them  home  to  his  flock,  that 
they  may  be  saved,  together  with  his  true  servants, 
and  be  made  one  flock  under  one  shepherd."* 

"Here  is  the  difference  between  such  persons  as 
have  received  their  commission  from  the  bishops,  and 
those  who  have  not  received  it,  that  to  the  former 
Christ  has  promised  his  presence  shall  remain;  that 
what  they  do  on  earth  shall  be  ratified  and  made  good 
in  heaven.  But  to  those  who  have  not  received  this 
commission,  our  Lord  hath  given  no  such  promise. 
A  person  not  commissioned  from  the  Bishop  may  use 
the  words  of  baptism,  and  sprinkle  or  bathe  with 
water,  on  earth,  but  there  is  no  promise  from  Christ 
that  such  a  man  shall  admit  souls  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  A  person  not  commissioned  may  break 
bread,  pour  out  wine,  and  proceed  to  give  the  Lord's 
supper,  but  it  can  afford  no  comfort  to  any  to  receive 
it  at  his  hands,  because  there  is  no  warrant  from 
Christ  to  lead  communicants  to  suppose,  that  while 
he  does  so  here  on  earth,  they  will  be  partakers  of 
the  Saviour's  heavenly  body  and  blood.  And  as  to 
the  person  himself,  who  takes  upon  himself  Avithout 
warrant  to  minister  in  holy  things,  he  is  all  the  while 
treading  in  the  steps  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Jibiram, 
whose  awful  punishments  we  read  of  in  the  Book  of 
Numbers,  "t 

Now,  on  this  statement,  I  would  offer  the  following 
observations: 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  founded  on  the  assumption, 
that  an  order  of  ministers,  denominated  bishops,  has 
been  instituted  by  Christ,  who  are  not  only  distinct 
from,  but  superior  to,  presbyters,  and  to  whom  alone 
he  has  committed  the  powers  of  ordination,  confirma- 

*  No.  35,  p.  6.  +  No.  35,  p.  3. 

5 


66 


LETTERS  OS 


tion  and  discipline.  But  this  is  a  position,  which,  as 
you  question  my  orders  and  those  of  my  brethren,  I 
am  compelled  to  controvert,  (and  you  have  provoked 
the  discussion,)  and  the  utter  groundlessness  and  fal- 
lacy of  which  I  shall  endeavour  afterwards  to  estab- 
lish more  fully.  I  shall  remark  only  in  the  meantime, 
that  such  an  order  was  not  discovered  in  Scripture,  as 
I  have  already  showed  you,  by  Cranmer  and  others 
of  your  leading  reformers,  for  they  admitted  the  va- 
lidity of  Presbyterian  ordination.  It  was  not  discov- 
ered by  Usher,  one  of  your  greatest  theologians,  who 
was  surpassed  by  none  in  his  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  the  early  Christians.  "  I  asked  him  also 
his  judgment,"  says  Baxter,  "about  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  which  he  asserted,  and  told 
me  that  the  king  asked  him,  at  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
where  he  found  in  antiquity  that  presbyters  alone 
ordained  any?  And  that  he  answered,  I  can  sbow 
your  Majesty  more,  even  where  presbyters  alone  suc- 
cessively ordained  bishops,  and  instanced  in  Hierome's 
words,  Epist.  ad  Evagrium,  of  the  presbyters  of  Alex- 
andria choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops,  from 
the  days  of  Mark  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius."*  It 
was  not  discovered  by  Willet,  whose  Synopsis  Papis- 
mi  is  said  to  have  been  approved  of  by  the  bishops^ 
for  he  represents  the  vesting  of  the  powers  of  ordi- 
nation, confirmation,  and  government  exclusively  in 
bishops,  as  mere  human  inventions  for  their  aggran- 
disement. "  To  the  ecclesiastical  policie  in  the  ad- 
vancing of  the  dignitie  of  bishops,"  says  he,  u  these 
things  (of  human  appointment)  doe  pertaine.  First  of 
all  St.  Hierome  saith  of  confirmation  committed  only 
to  bishops, — Disce  hanc  observationem,  &c.  Know 
that  this  observation  is  rather  for  the  honour  of  their 
priesthood,  than  by  the  necessitie  of  any  law."  Ad- 
vers.  Luciferian. 

"  Secondly,  The  Counsell  of  Aquisgrane,  cap.  8, 
saith.  that  the  ordination  and  consecration  of  min- 
isters is  now  reserved  to  the  chief  minister  only  for 
amhoritie  sake. 


*  Baxter's  Life  by  himself,  p.  206. 


t  Acta  Regia,  p.  289. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


67 


"  Fourthly ,  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  which, 
in  time  past,  Hierome  saith,  was  committed  to  the 
Senate  or  College  of  the  Presbyters,  was  afterward, 
to  avoyd  schisme,  devolved  to  the  bishop.  And  of 
this  senate  mention  is  made  in  the  Decrees,  Caus.  16, 
Qusest.  1,  cap.  7.  As  the  Romanes  had  their  senate, 
by  whose  counsell  every  matter  was  dispatched,  so 
we  have  our  senate,  the  companie  of  elders. 

"  Fifthly,  St.  Ambrose  saith,  1  Tim.  iii.,  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  have  but  one  ordination,  for  they 
are  both  in  the  priesthood.  And  St.  Hierome  saith, 
that  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  the  presbyters  did 
make  choice  of  one  whom  they  placed  in  a  higher 
degree,  and  called  him  their  bishop,  like  as  if  an  armie 
should  chuse  a  general,  or  the  deacons  should  choose 
an  industrious  man,  whom  they  make  their  archdea- 
con; Hierome  ad  Evag.  So  it  should  seem  that  the 
very  election  of  a  bishop  in  those  days,  without  any 
other  circumstances,  ivas  his  ordination."*  And  so 
far  was  Dr.  Field,  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  of 
his  day,  from  adopting  your  opinion,  that  he  says  of 
the  fathers,  "  who  made  all  such  ordinations  voide  as 
were  made  by  presbyters,  that  it  was  to  be  under- 
stood according  only  to  the  strictness  of  the  canons  in 
use  in  their  time,  not  absolutely  in  the  nature  of  the 
thing;  which  appears  in  that  they  made  all  ordina- 
tions sine  titulo  to  be  voide,  all  ordinations  of  bish- 
ops ordained  by  fewer  than  three  bishops  with  the 
Metropolitane,  and  all  ordinations  of  presbyters  by 
bishoppes  out  of  their  own  churches,  without  special 
leave."t  It  was  rejected  by  the  whole  of  the  Pro- 
testant Churches  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
almost  all  of  whom  united  in  setting  aside  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  while  the  few  who  retained  it,  adopted 
it,  not  because  it  was  of  divine  institution,  but  from 

*  Page  277. 

t  Treatise  on  the  Church,  book  iii.  p.  158.  Consult  also  chap.  39, 
where  he  proves,  in  opposition  to  Bellarmine  and  to  Dr.  Pusey,  that 
those  churches  among  the  reformed,  whose  ministers  were  ordained 
only  by  presbyters,  do  not  cease,  on  that  account,  "  to  have  any  min- 
i$terie  at  alt." 


68 


LETTERS  ON 


considerations  of  expediency.  Nor  did  they  abolish 
it  from  necessity,  as  some  have  assorted,  but  from 
principle,  for,  as  Jeremy  Taylor  acknowledges,  they 
could  easily  have  had  bishops  if  they  had  wished  for 
them.  Such  is  the  statement  even  of  Heylin,  one  of 
the  most  bitter  opponents  of  Presbytery  that  ever 
appeared,  for,  says  he,  in  his  answer  to  Burton,  "  if, 
by  your  divines,  you  meane  the  Genevian  doctors, 
Calvin  and  Beza,  Viret  and  Farellus,  Bucan,  Ursinus, 
and  those  others  of  forreine  Churches  whom  you 
esteem  the  onely  orthodox  professors,  you  may  affirm 
it  very  safely,  that  the  derivation  of  Episcopal!  autho- 
rity from  our  Saviour  Christ  is  utterly  disclaimed  by 
your  divines.  Calvin  had  never  else  invented  the 
Presbytery,  nor  with  such  violence  obtruded  it  on  all 
the  Reformed  Churches;  neither  had  Beza  divided 
Episcopatum  into  divinum,  human,  and  Satanicum, 
as  you  know  he  doth."*  And  snch  is  the  statement 
of  Le  Blanc,  one  of  the  professors  at  Sedan,  who, 
though  he  allows  that  your  opinion  had  crept  into 
the  Church  of  England  when  he  wrote,  says,  that 
"  the  rest  of  the  reformed,  and  the  divines  of  the 
Confessio7i  of  Jlvgsbitrgh,  agree  in  thinking  that 
there  is  no  difference,  by  divine  institution,  betiveen 
bishops  and  presbyters ;  but  as  the  names  are  given 
in  Scripture  to  the  same  persons,  so  the  office  is  the 
same."t  This  statement  is  confirmed  as  to  the  Re- 
formed Churches,  not  only  by  their  several  Confes- 
sions,:); but  by  the  important  fact,  which  is  mentioned 

*  Pages  64,  65. 

t  "  Ceteri  vero  reformati,  et  etiam  Augustana?  confessionis  theologi 
communiter  sentiunt  nullam  esse  jure  divino  dittinctionem  inter 
episcopum  atque  presbyterum,  sed  ut  nomina  ilia  in  Scriptura  sunt 
synonyma  atque  invicem  permutantur  ita  quoque  rem  plane  eandem 
esse;  eminentiam  autem  illam  episcoporum  supra  presbyteros  quae  a 
multis  seculis  in  ecclesia  Christiana  obtinet,  volunt  esse  tantum  juris 
positivi  et  ecclesiastici  sensimque  per  gradus  in  ecclesiam  introduc- 
tam,"  &c.  De  Grad.  et  Distinc.  Minist.  Eccles.  p.  36.  His  theses 
are  generally  acknowledged  to  be  stated  and  illustrated  with  grent 
candour. 

t  The  Helvetic  Confession  says,  that  all  ministers  of  the  Word 
have  equal  power  and  authority,  cap.  18.  "  Data  est  autem  omnibus 
in  ecclesia  ministris  una  et  aquaiis  potestas  sive  functio.  Certe  ab 
initio  episcopi  vel  presbyteri  ecclesiam  communi  opera  gubcrnarunt. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


69 


by  Caldenvood  in  his  MS.  History  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  namely,  that  the  second  Helvetic  Confession 

Nullus  alteri  se  prastulit,  aut  sibi  ampliorem  potestatem  dominiumque 
in  episcopos  usurpavit." 

The  same  is  the  language  of  the  French  Confession,  the  thirtieth 
article  of  which  is  in  these  words:  "Credimus  omnes  veros  pastores 
ubicunque  locorum  collocati  fuerunt,  eadem  et  cequali  inter  se  potes- 
tate  esse  praeditos  sub  unico  illo  capite,  summoque  et  solo  universali 
Episcopo  Jesu  Christo.  And  in  their  Discipline,  cap.  1,  art.  18,  they 
reject  "  nomina  superioritatis,  quemadmodum  seniorum  synodi,  su- 
perintendentium,  et  similia." 

The  Order  of  Geneva  says,  sec.  2,  "Primum  quatuor  sint  ordines 
vel  species  ministrorum  quas  Dominus  noster  ad  regimen  ecclesia? 
sua?  ordinariam  instituit,  nempe  pastores,  turn  doctores,  postea  seni- 
ores,  quarto  diaconi.  Propterea  si  ecclesiam  cupimus  bene  ordinatam 
et  servatam  in  integro  oportet  istam  observare  regiminis  formam." 

The  Belgic  Confession  says,  Art.  31,  "  Coeterum  ubi  sint  locorum 
verbi  Dei  ministri  eandem  illi  atque  sequalem  omnes  habeant  turn 
potestatem,  turn  autoritatem,  ut  qui  sint  oeque  omnes  Christi  unici 
illius  episcopi  universalis  et  capitis  ecclesire  ministri." 

The  first  article  agreed  upon  by  the  National  Synod  at  Embden, 
in  the  year  1571,  was,  "Nulla  ecclesia  in  aliam,  nullus  minister  in 
alium,  nec  senior  vcl  diaconus  in  alios  sive  seniores,  sive  diaconos 
ullam  exercebunt  dominationem." 

The  VVirtemburgh  Confession  says,  in  the  chapter  de  Ordinc, 
"  Docet  autem  Hieronymus  eundem  esse  episcopum  et  presbyterum. 
Quare  manifestum  est  nisi  presbyter  instituatur  in  ecclesia  ad  minis- 
terium  docendi,  nec  presbytcri,  nec  episcopi,  nomen  recte  usurpare 
qucant  "  The  first  Danish  Confession,  which  was  drawn  up  by  Taus- 
sanus,  the  head  of  the  Lutherans,  and  which  received  the  sanction 
of  the  State  in  1537,  and  was  afterwards  translated  into  Latin  by 
Pontanus,  says,  "  Veri  episcopi  sive  sacerdotes,  qui  iidem  omnes  sunt, 
(true  bishops  or  priests,  who  are  ull  the  same,)  nihil  aliud  sunt  quam 
verbi  divini  administri,  nec  eorum  est  curare  ea  qua;  ad  mundi  pom- 
pam  vel  poliliam  spectant.  Altertitrum  horum  aut  descrendum  aut 
faciendum."  And  it  is  mentioned  by  Gerdesius,  Hist.  Evangel.  Re- 
novat.,  vol.  iii.  p.  412,  that  the  King  of  Denmark,  as  Duke  of  Hol- 
stcin,  in  1538,  subscribed  the  Articles  of  Smulkald,  which,  as  wc  shall 
sec  immediately,  declare  that  bishops  and  presbyters  arc  the  same  by 
divine  appointment. 

And  it  would  seem  from  what  is  mentioned  by  Messcnius  in  his 
Schondia  Illustrata,  torn.  5,  p.  54,  that  it  was  superintendents  who 
were  settled  aller  the  Reformation  in  Sweden,  as  well  as  Denmark. 
"  Rex  Gustavus,"  says  he,  "nihil  motus,  aliis  Sueonum  tumultibus 
jam  sedatis,  nuptiarum  molitur  eclebrationem,  illaquc  cum  requireret 
Arclii-Pra:sulis  officium,  convocati  regni  clcri  ad  24  Junii  diem 
Stockholmiae  mandat  Primatem  eligere.  Quocirca  4  nominatis  can- 
didatis,  nimirum,  M.  Magno  Stregncnsium  Episcopo;  M.  Laurentio 
Andrea;  Doctore,  Joanne  Upsalensium  Decano,  et  M.  Laurentio, 
ibidem  ludimagistro,  vota  fcruntur  et  colliguntur,  pluraque  ideo  nactus 
competitor  ultimus  quod  elcctores  Lutherani  cssent  plurcs,  quam 


70 


LETTERS  ON 


"  was  allowed  and  subscrived  not  only  by  the  Tigu- 
rines  themselves,  and  their  confederates  of  Berne,  by 
Scaphnsia,  Sangallia,  Rhetia,  Millan,  and  Viemia,  but 
also  Geneva,  Savoy,  Polonia  and  Hungaria.  In  this 
Confession,  superiority  of  ministers  above  ministers 
is  called  ane  human  appointment ;  confirmation  is 
judged  to  be  a  device  of  men,  which  the  Kirk  may 
want  without  dammage ;  baptisme  by  women  or  mid- 
wives  condemned."*  And  it  is  confirmed  by  the 
famous  Articles  of  Smalkald,  which  affirm  expressly, 
that,  "  by  divine  right,  there  is  no  difference  between 
a  bishop  and  a  pastor  or  presbyter,  that  orders  com- 
municated by  the  latter  are  valid,  because  of  divine 
right,  and  that  the  power  of  jurisdiction  or  govern- 
ment belongs  to  all  pastors  or  presbyters,  and  has 
been  unlawfully  and  shamefully  appropriated  to  them- 
selves by  diocesan  bishops."t  And  we  know  that 
these  articles  were  subscribed,  not  only  by  three  Elec- 

Catholici,  ac  ejusdem  ipsemct  professionis  foret,  Archi-superintendens 
salutatur. 

"  Ita  electum  consequitur  ccclesia  Upsalensis  Archi-superintcnden- 
tem.  Nominatos  quoque  habuit  superintendentes  Lincopensis,  Sca- 
rensis,  atque  Wexoniensis,  non  inaugurates.  Quos  proptcrea  velut 
solennitati,  regiarum  etiam  neccssarios  nuptiarum,  jubet  Rex  Gusta- 
vus,  12.  Augusti  1531,  suscipere  consccrationem  non  archiclectum." 
Afterwards  they  assumed  the  name  of  bishops. 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  25. 

t  In  the  Article  dc  Episcoporum  Potestate  et  Jurisdictione,  after 
quoting  the  words  of  Jerome,  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  and  in  other 
parts  of  his  writings,  the  Reformers  say,  (Osiander's  Epitome  of 
Church  History,  torn.  6,  pars  1,  p.  299,)  "  Hie  docet  Hieronymus, 
distinctos  gradus  episcoporum  et  presbytcrorum  sive  pastorum  tan- 
turn  humana  aut/ioritate  constitutes  esse;  idque  res  ipsa  loquitur,  quia 
officium  et  mandatum  plane  idem  est,  et  sola  ordinatio  postea  discri- 
men  inter  episcopos  et  pastores  fecit.  Sic  enim  postea  institutum 
fuit,  ut  unus  episcopus  ordinaret  ministros  vcrbi  in  plurimis  ecclesiis. 

"Quia  autem  jure  divino  nullum  est  diserimen  inter  episcopum  et 
pastorem,  non  est  dubium  ordinationem  idoneorum  ministrorum  a 
pastore  in  ecclesia  factam  jure  divino  ratam  et  probatam  esse."  And 
they  say  with  regard  to  jurisdiction,  p.  301,  "  Constat  jurisdictionem 
illam  communem  excommunicandi  reos  manifestorum  criininum  per- 
tinere  ad  omnes  pastores,  et  earn  episcopos  iijratinice  ad  se  solos  ad 
qusestum  suum  turpiter  explendum  attraxisse."  And  they  add,  p. 
302,  "Cum  igitur  banc  jurisdictionem  episcopi  tyranniee  ad  se  solos 
transtulerint  eaque  turpiter  abusi  sint — certe  licet  banc  furto  et  vi 
ablatam  jurisdictionem  rursus  ipsis  adimere  et  pastoribus  ad  quos  ea 
de  mandato  Christi  pcrtinet  restituere,"  &c. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


71 


tors,  forty-five  Dukes,  Marquesses,  Counts,  and  Ba- 
rons, the  Consuls  and  Senators  of  thirty-five  cities,  but 
by  Luther,  Melancthon,  Bucer,  and  Fagius,and  about 
eight  thousand  other  clergymen."*  If  these  things, 
however,  are  so,  and  if  neither  the  founders  of  your 
own  Protestant  Church,  nor  the  most  eminent  minis- 
ters of  the  other  Protestant  Churches  for  many  years 
after  the  Reformation,  who  enjoyed  so  much  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Spirit,  and  studied  so  successfully  the 
word  of  God  on  other  subjects,  could  discover  the 
smallest  evidence  for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  and  pro- 
nounced it  to  be  entirely  a  human  institution,  I  would 
press  it  most  earnestly  on  your  serious  consideration, 
whether  it  does  not  furnish  at  least  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption that  you  are  likely  to  be  wrong  when  you 
maintain,  in  opposition  to  their  united  opinion,  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  that  Preshyterian  ministers  can- 
not be  regarded  as  Christian  ministers,  and  that  their 
people  can  have  no  covenanted  title  to  salvation. 
I  remain,  Reverend  sir, 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  V. 

Presumptive  evidence  that  dincesan  bishops  have  not  been  appointed  by 
God,  because  the  only  bishops  mentioned  in  Scripture  among  the  stand- 
ing ministers  of  the  Church  are  presbyters,  and  no  passage  can  be  pro- 
duced specifying  the  qualifications  required  in  bishops  as  distinct  from 
presbyters.— This  inexplicable,  if  there  was  to  be  an  order  of  ministers, 
denominated  bishops  superior  to  presbyters. — Presbyter,  a  name  of  higher 
honour  than  bishop.— No  minister  of  an  inferior  order  distinguished  by 
the  name  of  a  minister  of  a  superior  order. — Deacons  never  called  pres- 
byters, but  presbyters  always  represented  as  bishops.— The  powers  ul 
ordination  and  government  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  presbyters — Wick- 
liff  held  the  principles  of  Presbytery,  and  maintained  that  Scripture 
gave  no  countenance  to  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

Reverend  Sir, — But  even  though  I  should  concede 
to  you,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  an  order  of 
ministers,  superior  to  presbyters,  and  denominated 

*  Vincent.  Place.  Syntagma  de  Scriptis  ct  Scriptor.  Anonymis. 


72 


LETTERS  ON 


bishops,  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  it  remains  for  you 
to  show  that  the  difference  between  them  is  so  very 
great,  as  to  authorise  you  to  unchristianize  every 
Church,  the  ministers  of  which  have  been  ordained 
only  by  presbyters;  and  yet,  so  far  are  you  from 
being  able  to  prove  this,  that  the  contrary  seems  to  be 
established  by  two  important  considerations.  In  the 
first  place,  not  only  are  bishops  distinguished  some- 
times by  the  name  of  presbyters,  but  presbyters  are 
denominated  bishops,  though  in  one  of  the  principal 
passages  in  which  they  are  designated  by  that  name 
in  the  original  language,  our  Episcopalian  translators 
have  substituted  the  term  u  overseers."  Thus,  in  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  we  are  told,  that  "  from 
Miletus,  Paul  sent  for  the  elders  or  presbyters  of  the 
Church,  and  said  to  them,"  according  to  Wickliff's 
version,  "  Take  ghe  tent  to  ghou  and  to  al  the  flok  in 
Avhich  the  hooli  goost  hath  set  ghou  bischoppes  to 
reule  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  purchased  with 
his  blood."*  And  that  it  is  presbyters  who  are  here 
represented  as  bishops  is  admitted  by  the  Church 
of  England  herself,  for  in  the  form  of  ordering  of 

*  I  have  already  produced  evidence,  that  AVicklifF  held  Presby- 
terian principles  with  regard  to  the  government  of  the  Church. 
Flaccius  Illyricus,  or,  as  is  stated  by  Czvittinger,  in  his  Specimen 
Hungariffi  Literature,  p.  153,  the  celebrated  Francowitz,  one  of 
the  three  Centurists  of  Magdeburgh,  who  wrote  under  that  name, 
says,  in  his  Catalogus  Testium  Veritatis,  p.  493,  that  he  taught 
"  tantum  duos  ministrorum  ordines  debere  esse  nempe  presbyteros  ct 
diaconos."  And  Dr.  Allix  says,  p.  222,  of  his  Remarks  on  the  Albi- 
genses,  "  that  even  Knighton  was  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  one 
half,  yea,  the  greater  part  of  the  people  of  England  owned  his  doc- 
trine." 

I  may  further  appeal  to  the  following  decisive  testimony  by  Wal- 
singham,  who  flourished  a.  d.  1440,  which  puts  it  beyond  a  doubt 
that  Wicklitf  was  a  Presbyterian.  "  Lollardi,"  says  he,  in  his  His- 
tory of  England,  p.  339,  '«  per  idem  tempus  in  errorem  suum  plu- 
rimos  seduxerunt,  et  tantam  prsesumpserunt  audaciam  ut  eorum  pres- 
byteri  more  pontificum  novos  crearent  presbyteros  asserentes  (ut  fre- 
quenter supra  retulimus)  quemlibet  sacerdotem  tantam  consecutum 
potestatem  ligandi  atque  solvendi,  et  cetera  ecclesiastica  ministrandi 
quantam  ipse  Papa  dat  vel  dare  potest." 

"  Unum  audacter  assero,"  said  WicklifF,  as  quoted  by  Neal  in  his 
History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  3,  note,  "  One  thing  I  boldly  assert, 
that  in  the  primitive  Church,  or  in  the  time  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  two 
orders  of  clergy  were  thought  sufficient,  viz.  priest  and  deacon ;  and 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


73 


priests,  published  in  1549,  she  appointed  this  passage 
to  be  read  to  them  to  point  out  their  duty.  But  if 
they  are  denominated  bishops,  it  seems  evidently  to 
follow  that  they  must  be  little  inferior  to  them,  or  to 
speak  more  correctly,  that  they  must  be  equal  to 
them;  for  if  you  would  infer  the  equality  of  the  Son 
and  the  Spirit  to  the  first  person  in  the  Godhead, 
because  the  same  names  are  given  to  them  which  are 
applied  to  the  Father,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  on 
what  principles  you  can  prove  that  a  similar  equality 
must  not  exist  between  presbyters  and  bishops.  Nor 
is  it  any  answer  to  this  to  say,  as  has  been  often  done 
by  Episcopalians,  that  even  Apostles  are  sometimes 
denominated  presbyters;  1  Pet.  v.  1;  for  though  some 
of  the  ministers  in  the  primitive  Church  who  were  of 
a  superior  order  were  called  occasionally  by  the  name 
of  ministers  of  an  inferior  grade,  because  they  could 
discharge  their  duties,  I  am  not  aware  of  any  instance, 
(and  I  call  upon  you  to  produce  one  if  you  are  able,) 
in  which  a  minister  who  belonged  to  an  inferior 
order  was  designated  by  the  name  of  a  minister 
of  a  higher  order,  to  the  exercise  of  ivhose  powers 
he  was  completely  unequal.  Deacons,  for  instance, 
are  never  represented  as  presbyters  or  bishops,  and 
yet  presbyters  are  often  denominated  bishops.  And, 

I  do  also  say,  that  in  the  time  of  Paul,/«i£  idem  presbyter  atque  epis- 
copus,  a  priest  and  a  bishop  were  one  and  the  same." 

Even  Nicol  Burne,  the  Papist,  translates  the  passage  referred  to  in 
the  text,  (Acts  xx.  28,)  "Tak  tent  to  zour  selfis  and  the  hail  flok 
over  the  quhilk  the  Halie  Ghaist  hes  apoyntit  zou  bischops  to  gov- 
erne  the  kirk  of  God,  quhilk  he  hes  conquesed  with  his  blude;"  p. 
107,  of  hi?  Disputation.  Miles  Coverdale  renders  it,  "  Take  hede, 
therefore,  unto  your  selves,  and  to  all  the  floeke  among  the  which 
the  Holy  Goost  hath  set  you  to  be  bishoppes  to  fede  the  congregacion 
of  God,  which  he  hath  purchaced  thorou  his  oune  bloude."  The 
Bishops  of  Gaul  and  Germany,  in  their  Epistle  to  Anastasius,  quoted 
by  Illyricus  or  Francowitz,  p.  41,  of  his  Catalogus,  render  it,  "  posuit 
episcopos;"  and  the  same  version  is  given  by  Stephens,  Diodati, 
and  even  Hooker  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  p.  377,  book  7,  or 
rather  by  Dr.  Gauden,  who  wrote  the  last  three  books  of  that  work. 
And  says  the  learned  Hoornbeck,  in  his  Notes  on  Usher's  Reduced 
Plan  of  Episcopacy,  p.  51,  "  Versio  /Ethiopica  pro  episeopis  habet 
papis.  Elenim  apud  vcteres,  papa  pro  episcopo  venit,  Cypriano  Pap®, 
Augustino  Papa?,"  &c. 


74 


LETTERS  ON 


secondly,  not  only  is  the  name  of  bishops  bestowed 
upon  presbyters,  but  the  very  same  qualifications 
are  required  from  them,  (Tit.  i.  5 — 9.)  for  the  dis- 
charge of  their  office;  and  I  challenge  you  to  produce 
any  passage  of  Scripture  where  a  single  attainment, 
intellectual  or  moral,  is  demanded  from  a  bishop 
which  is  not  exacted  from  a  presbyter.*  Now,  if  a 
presbyter  is  designated  by  the  name  of  a  bishop,  and 
must  have  all  his  qualifications,  I  would  be  glad  to 
be  informed  on  what  ground  you  maintain  that  he  is 
not  equal  to  a  bishop,  for,  as  is  proved  in  the  notes, 
the  former  is  even  a  name  implying  higher  honour. 
Or  if  there  be  any  difference,  whether  it  can  really  be 
so  great  as  to  warrant  you  to  affirm  that  Churches 

*  Dr.  Whitby  observes,  on  Titus  i.  7,  "Hence,  say  the  Greek  and 
Latin  commentators,  it  is  manifest  that  the  same  person  is  called  a 
presbyter  in  the  5th,  and  a  bishop  in  the  7th  verse." 

Hoornbeck,  in  his  Notes  on  Usher,  shows  that  the  term  presbyter 
implies  greater  honour  than  that  of  bishop,  which  renders  it  very 
strange,  if  the  office  of  a  bishop  was  intended  to  be  superior  to  that 
of  a  presbyter,  that  the  latter  should  receive  the  name  expressive  of 
greater  dignity.  "  Neque  dubium  esse  potest,"  says  he,  p.  47,  "  quin 
ab  Judaeis  nomen  presbyterorum  ad  Christianos,  et  ex  ipsorum  politia 
in  ecclesiam  defluxerit,  prout  apud  illos  semper  honoratissimi  fuerunt, 
ci  Trqtrf&uTigH,  Tg£7,.£yT££;i  Tut  lovSmtti,  Actor,  xxv.  15;  rrgsrii/Tsgs;  Tea 
f&gzuK,  Act.  iv.  8;  Trgtr&vtigu  tcv  xa.™,  Matt.  xxi.  23,  et  alibi.  Atque 
ita  apud  Judseos  lonze  dignius  nomen  -revri-j-it^-.u,  t;u  Zakan,  quaru 
rriTiiniv,  hetzen,  ita  perperam  in  voce  episcopi  supra  presbyteros, 
glorianiur  qui  deprimere  hos  volunt  infra  episcopum,  et  coguntur 
tamen  presbyteris  in  ipso  nomine  relinquere  monumentum  pristina 
atque  majoris  dignitatis.  Hesychius,  n^rfc-j-Txi  oi  trriu'A  honorati,  et 
jrgs^ri/Ts^sc  /jLi.^uv  9gsw/i>T6gcr,  major  et  prudentior.  Inde  senioris 
nomen  in  alias  linguas  defluxit  ad  significandum  Dominum,  Signor, 
Seigneur,  Sir.  De  ipsis  Chinensibus  in  praefatione  ad  Atlantem  Sini- 
cum  Martinus  Martinius  inquit,  quod  tota  apud  cos  honoris  ratio  a 
senectute  petitur:  nos  honoris  titulos  a  familiee  dignitate  aut  mune- 
ris  amplitudine,  illi  a  sola  senectute  desumunt,  quo  seniorem  quem- 
piam  vocas,  eo  dignior  appellatio  est,  qua  in  re  tamen  suos  habent 
gradus." 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  even  Hooker,  or  Bishop  Gauden, 
acknowledges  that  the  bishops  referred  to  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  only  presbyters.  "  Timothy  and  Titus,"  says  he, 
"  having  by  commission  episcopal  authority,  were  to  exercise  the 
same  in  ordaining  not  bishops,  the  Apostles  themselves  yet  living, 
and  retaining  that  power  in  their  own  hands,  but  presbyters,  such  as 
the  Apostles  at  the  first  did  create  in  all  the  Churches.  Bishops  by 
restraint,  only  James  at  Jerusalem  excepted,  were  not  yet  in  being." 
Eccles.  Polity,  book  7. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


75 


which  are  governed  only  by  presbyters  are  not  Chris- 
tian Churches,  and  that  their  members  are  only  "  mid- 
way between  you  and  heathenism." 

You  may  tell  me,  however,  that  even  admitting 
the  equality,  or  rather  perfect  identity,  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  there  were  ministers  in  the  Church  from 
the  very  beginning  of  a  superior  order,  which  was 
intended  to  be  permanent,  and  that  where  these  are 
not  to  be  found  in  the  present  day,  the  Church  which 
wants  them  cannot  be  considered  as  a  Christian 
Church.  But  I  would  like  to  be  informed  among 
which  of  its  ministers  at  that  early  period  you  find 
the  individuals  who  belonged  to  that  order.  If  it  was 
among  the  Apostles  and  the  Evangelists,  Timothy 
and  Titus,  I  deny  that  you  are  entitled  to  represent 
them  as  belonging  to  such  an  order,  for  I  shall  endea- 
vour to  show  you  that  they  were  extraordinary  office- 
bearers, without  any  fixed  abode  or  particular  charge, 
who  were  raised  up  merely  to  found  and  organize  the 
Church.  And  if  I  shall  succeed  in  establishing  this 
in  a  future  part  of  the  discussion,  it  will  no  more  fol- 
low, that  after  they  had  fulfilled  their  commission, 
and  had  rested  from  their  labours,  they  were  to  be 
succeeded  by  others  with  similar  powers,  than  that 
the  same  extraordinary  powers  which  had  been  vested 
by  a  king  in  special  commissioners,  for  organizing  the 
government  of  a  particular  country,  were  to  be  exer- 
cised afterwards  by  some  of  its  magistrates,  when  the 
arrangements  were  completed.  And  if  it  is  among 
its  ordinary  ministers  that  you  find  the  individuals 
who  were  connected  with  that  order,  I  will  be  happy 
if  you  will  name  them.  Paul  did  not  discover  them 
in  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  for  he  called  upon  its  pres- 
byters to  feed  and  govern,  (noi^aivtiv),*  the  Church  of 

*  See  Mat.  ii.  G  ;  Ucv.  ii.  27,  xii.  IS,  where  our  translators  render 
the  same  word  "  rule." 

While  many  Episcopalians  have  acknowledged,  that  as  presbyters 
are  represented  as  bishops  in  Scripture,  they  were  the  same  as 
bishops,  or  rather  the  only  bishops  among  the  ordinary  ministers, 
Charles  Leslie  denied  it  in  the  following  rambling  remarks,  which 
Bishop  Russcl,  it  would  seem,  thought  perfectly  conclusive,  for  he 
has  quoted  them  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Sermon  on  the  Historical 


76 


LETTERS  OX 


God,  over  the  which  the  Hohr  Ghost  "had  made  them 
bishops."    Peter  did  not  discover  them  among  the 

Evidence  for  Episcopacy,  p.  49.  "  If  our  opponents  will  say,  (because 
they  have  nothing  left  to  say,)  that  all  London,  for  example,  was  but 
one  parish,  and  that  the  presbyter  of  every  other  parish  was  as  much 
a  bishop  as  the  Bishop  of  London,  because  the  words  Ewx;t;;  and 
T\£i?Z-jTi^:t,  bishop  and  presbyter,  are  sometimes  used  in  the  same 
sense,  they  may  as  well  prove  that  Christ  was  but  a  deacon,  because 
he  is  called,  Rom.  xv.  8,  Cucucortie,  which  we  rightly  translate  a  minis- 
ter." But  upon  this  I  remark,  that  the  Redeemer  is  not  called  a 
deacon  in  that  passage,  though  presbyters  are  denominated  bishops 
in  many  parts  of  the  New  Testament;  nor  could  he,  for  he  neither 
served  the  tables  of  the  poor,  nor  did  he  baptise,  (John  iv.  2,)  like  the 
deacons  in  the  Episcopalian  churches,  and  consequently  the  argu- 
ment fails.  Besides,  the  presbyters  of  the  different  parishes  in  Eng- 
land are  never  called  bishops,  and  could  not  be  so  designated,  which 
proves  no  less  clearly  the  groundlessness  and  capriciousness  of  the 
observation,  while  the  presbyters  of  the  New  Testament  are  distin- 
guished by  that  name,  and  the  same  qualifications  are  not  only  re- 
quired from  them  as  from  bishops,  but  no  other  bishops  are  ever  spoken 
of  among  the  standing  yninisters  of  the  Church.  "  Bishop,"  he  adds, 
"  signifies  an  overseer,  and  presbyter  an  ancient  man,  or  elder  man ; 
whence  our  term  of  alderman.  And  this  is  as  good  a  foundation  to 
prove  that  the  Apostles  were  aldermen,  in  the  city  acceptation  of  the 
word,  or  that  our  aldermen  are  all  bishops  and  apostles,  as  to  prove 
that  presbyters  and  bishops  are  all  one,  from  the  childish  jingle  of 
the  words."  In  reply  to  which  I  would  only  observe,  without  using 
that  severity  of  language  which  it  well  deserves,  that  we  are  at  issue, 
not  merely  on  the  general  meaning  of  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter, 
but  upon  their  meaning  as  applied  in  Scripture,  not  to  civil,  but  eccle- 
siastical office-bearers;  and  we  consider  ourselves  as  entitled  to  con- 
clude, from  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  that  presbyters  are  equal 
in  power  to  bishops,  because  they  are  called  bishops,  while  deacons 
are  equal  neither  to  presbyters  nor  bishops,  because  they  are  never 
called  by  these  names,  just  as  presbyters  are  not  equal  to  Apostles, 
because  they  are  never  represented  in  Scripture  as  Apostles.  The 
cases,  therefore,  are  evidently  not  in  point,  and  the  argument  which 
appears  to  have  delighted  Bishop  Russel,  as  well  as  his  own  remarks 
about  Cicero  and  Hector,  whom  he  makes  out  to  be  two  bishops,  is 
utterly  useless.  It  would  have  been  a  little  more  to  his  purpose  if 
he  could  have  proved,  by  way  of  analogy,  that  the  common  council- 
men  of  London,  or  any  other  city,  were  called  aldermen,  or  that  the 
baillies  of  Edinburgh  or  Glasgow  were  called  provosts,  (though  even 
that  would  not  settle  the  question  about  the  meaning  of  scriptural 
ecclesiastical  terms ;)  but  that  illustration,  I  presume,  did  not  occur 
either  to  him  or  the  bishop. 

With  regard  to  his  observation  on  the  term  grace,  as  applied  now 
to  dukes,  which  was  formerly  given  to  kings,  it  also  is  not  in  point, 
feeble  as  it  is;  for,  as  far  as  I  know,  it  never  was  given  to  both  in 
the  same  age,  a  king  being  addressed  as  his  majesty,  as  soon  as  a 
duke  began  to  be  addressed  as  his  grace.    And  with  regard  to  the 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACV. 


77 


ministers  to  whom  he  wrote  his  first  Epistle,  for  the 
highest  order  which  he  mentions  among  them,  ch.  v.  1, 
is  that  of  presbyters."  Nor  did  John  discover  them 
even  among  the  angels  of  the  Churches  of  Lesser  Asia, 
whose  name,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  observes,  was  derived 
from  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  Jewish  synagogues, 
who  had  no  authority  beyond  his  own  congregation, 
and  was  but  ill  adapted  to  be  the  emblem  of  a  bishop, 
who  had  not  only  authority,  but  the  sole  authority, 
over  the  ministers  and  members  perhaps  of  a  thou- 
sand synagogues.  Besides,  as  the  seven  candlesticks 
which  were  seen  by  that  Apostle  represented  not 
merely  one,  but  the  whole  of  the  congregations  of 
these  seven  Churches,  so  it  is  plain  that  the  seven 
angels  represented  not  merely  seven  diocesan  bishops, 
but  the  whole  of  the  ministers  in  these  different 
Churches.  This  is  plain  from  what  is  said  to  the 
angel  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  ch.  ii.  ver.  10;  for 
while  he  is  addressed  in  the  end  of  that  verse  as  if  he 
were  a  single  person,  and  is  exhorted  to  "be  faithful 
unto  death,"  and  is  assured  that  he  will  "  receive  a 
crown  of  life,"  he  is  addressed  in  the  first  part  as  if 
he  represented  a  plurality  of  persons;  for  says  the 
Redeemer  to  him,  "  and  the  devil  shall  cast  some  of 
you  into  prison,  that  ye  may  be  tried,  and  ye  shall 
have  tribulation  ten  days."  And  it  is  evident  that 
these  persons  cannot  be  the  ordinary  members  of  the 
Church,  but  the  ministers,  otherwise  the  reward  would 
be  promised,  not  to  the  individuals  who  were  faithful 
unto  death,  notwithstanding  their  sufferings,  but  to 
other  individuals  who  did  not  suffer  at  all.  And  as 
the  latter  supposition  is  utterly  inadmissible,  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  must  have 

term  Imperator,  applied  to  the  general  of  a  Roman  army,  when  he 
was  in  command  of  it,  and  to  tlie  Roman  emperor,  who  was  chief 
captain  of  all  the  armies  of  the  empire,  and  whoso  title  always 
remained  while  he  lived,  it  will  be  a  better  analogy,  though  not  an 
argument,  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  scriptural  term  bishop,  when  it 
is  proved  from  the  Bible,  that  among  the  standing  ministers  of  the 
Church,  there  were  to  be  two  orders  of  bishops — one  of  a  higher 
grade,  like  the  Roman  emperor,  and  another  of  a  lower,  like  the 
generals  of  armies  or  of  divisions. 


78 


LETTERS  ON 


represented  not  merely  one  minister  denominated  a 
bishop,  but  the  whole  of  the  ministers  of  that  early 
Church,  just  as  the  angel  whom  John  saw,  ch.  xiv.  6, 
"flying  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  having  the  everlasting 
Gospel  to  preach  unto  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth, 
and  to  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people,"  did  not  represent  only  a  single  minister,  but 
a  number  of  ministers,  who,  at  the  period  referred  to, 
were  to  engage  in  that  work.  And  the  same  thing  is 
stated  no  less  distinctly  of  the  angel  of  the  Church 
of  Thyatira,  who  is  addressed  in  these  terms,  ii.  24, 
"  But  unto  you  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira, 
(as  many  as  have  not  this  doctrine,"  &c.,)  evidently 
implying  that  he  was  not  a  single  individual,  but  the 
representative  at  least  of  a  plurality  of  persons.  And 
as  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  an  order  of 
ministers  superior  to  presbyters,  among  the  ordinary 
and  permanent  ministers  of  the  Church,  in  any  part 
of  the  New  Testament,  so  an  incontrovertible  proof 
that  no  such  order  was  either  instituted  before  the 
death  of  John,  as  has  often  been  affirmed,  or  was 
intended  to  be  instituted,  is  furnished  by  the  fact,  that 
nothing  is  said  of  the  qualifications  which  are  required 
in  the  ministers  of  that  order,  to  enable  those  who  are 
to  appoint  and  ordain  them  to  judge  whether  they  are 
fit  for  that  high  office.  And  this  is  the  more  inexpli- 
cable, on  the  supposition  that  such  an  order  was  to 
be  established  in  the  Church,  as  we  have  a  particu- 
lar statement  of  the  qualifications  of  presbyters  or 
parochial  bishops,  (Tit.  i.  5-9,)  and  even  of  deacons, 
(1  Tim.  iii.  8-13;)  while  the  office  of  diocesan  bishops, 
according  to  Episcopalians,  is  incomparably  more  im- 
portant, inasmuch  as  they  have  the  sole  power  of 
ordination  and  confirmation,  and  of  the  inspection 
and  government  of  hundreds  of  congregations;  and 
are  far  more  efficient  than  Presbyterian  ministers  or 
Presbyterian  Church  courts  for  preventing  schism, 
and  promoting  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church.  I 
call  upon  you,  then,  to  produce  such  a  statement  of 
the  qualifications  which  are  necessary  in  the  indivi- 
duals who  are  to  occupy  that  exalted  station;  and  if, 


PTISEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


79 


like  the  whole  of  the  defenders  of  your  ecclesiastical 
polity  for  the  last  two  hundred  years,  you  fail  to  do 
this,  it  presents  a  strong  and  unanswerable  argument, 
to  prove  that  the  order  of  diocesan  bishops  has  not 
been  instituted  by  God. 

I  might  show  you,  in  short,  that  as  presbyters  are 
the  highest  order  of  ministers  next  to  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
only  ministers  whom  it  recognises  as  bishops,  so  it 
represents  them  as  exercising  the  whole  of  those  pow- 
ers which  you  appropriate  to  your  prelates.  While 
no  instance  of  ordination  is  said  to  have  taken  place 
by  any  of  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic  Churches,  whom 
you  allege  to  have  been  bishops,  we  have  incontro- 
vertible proof  that  it  was  performed  by  presbyters. 
The  case,  for  example,  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  recorded 
Acts  xiii.  1-3,  is  considered  by  Archbishop  Wake,  Dr. 
Hammond  and  others,  as  an  instance  of  ordination; 
and  yet  it  was  performed  not  only  by  prophets,  the 
second  class  of  extraordinary  ministers,  (Ephes.  iv.  11,) 
but  by  teachers  or  presbyters.  And  even  though  it 
should  be  admitted  that  it  was  not  ordination,  it  was 
the  next  thing  to  it,  for  they  were  set  apart  by  prayer 
and  fasting,  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  usual 
exercises  which  accompanied  ordination,  to  a  very 
solemn  work,  namely,  the  discharge  of  their  ministry 
among  the  Gentiles.  And  it  was  they  who  ordained 
the  Evangelist  Timothy,  for  he  is  exhorted  by  Paul, 
(1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  "not  to  neglect  the  gift  that  was  in 
him,"  or,  according  to  the  meaning  of  that  expression 
in  a  parallel  passage,  (Ephes.  iv.  7,  8,  11.)  the  office 
which  had  been  conferred  upon  him  "  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  Nor  does  the 
word  translated  the  presbytery  denote,  as  has  been 
affirmed,  the  presbyterate  or  office  of  the  presbyters, 
for  that  unquestionably  "  had  no  hands,"  but,  accord- 
ing to  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  term,  Luke  xxii.  66, 
Acts  xxii.  5,  &c,  a  company  or  assembly  of  presby- 
ters. Nor  were  they  diocesan  bishops  as  others  have 
asserted,  for,  as  Dr.  Forbes,  a  candid  Episcopalian, 
acknowledges,  "the  word  will  not  admit  of  that  inter- 


so 


LETTERS  ON 


pretation,  unless  you  understand  by  it  simple  presby- 
ters; and  whether  the  Apostle  speaks  of  Timothy's 
ordination  as  a  presbyter  or  as  a  bishop,  it  was  pres- 
byters who  composed  the  presbytery  who  performed 
it."*  And  it  is  not  more  difficult  to  conceive  of  his 
having  been  ordained  by  presbyters,  though  he  was 
an  Evangelist,  than  of  presbyters  having  ordained 
Paul  at  Antioch,  though  he  was  an  Jipostle;  or  of 
their  having  set  him  apart  along  with  Barnabas,  not 
merely  to  a  temporary  mission,  but  to  the  great  work 
of  preaching  the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles. 

If  it  be  alleged  that  Paul  took  part  in  the  ordination 
of  Timothy,  or  rather  that  he  alone  ordained  him, 
because  he  exhorts  him,  (2  Tim.  i.  6,)  to  "stir  up  the 
gift  of  God  which  was  in  him  by  the  putting  on  of  his 
hands,"  and  that  the  presbytery  merely  assented  or 
concurred  when  they  laid  on  their  hands,  as  the  pre- 
position fiita,  seems  to  signify,  I  remark,  first,  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  any  other  person  than  the  pres- 
bytery having  taken  part  in  the  ordination;  for  the 
gift  to  which  the  Apostle  refers  in  his  second  Epistle 
more  probably  denotes  that  extraordinary  faith  which 
could  remove  mountains,  (1  Cor.  xiii.  2,)  or  that  extra- 
ordinary fortitude  which  triumphed  over  difficulties, 
and  which,  like  other  supernatural  gifts,  was  com- 
municated sometimes  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hands; 
Acts  xix.  &c.  This  agrees  better  with  the  exhorta- 
tion to  stir  up  the  gift  which  was  in  him,  if  it  be  under- 
stood in  that  sense,  than  if  it  be  taken  in  the  other,  for 
we  cannot  comprehend  how  he  could  "stir  up"  an 
office.  And  it  agrees  also  better  with  the  words  of 
Paul  in  the  following  verse,  where  he  adds,  "  For  God 
hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  poiver,  and 
of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind."  I  call  upon  you  then 
to  prove  that  the  Apostle  took  any  part  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy;  and  if  you  are  able  to  establish  this, 

*  After  remarking  that  the  word  translated  Presbytery  signifies 
"Consessus  Presbyterorum,"  he  adds,  "sic  enim  in  Novo Testamen- 
to  passim  et  apud  antiquissimos  scriptores  ecclesiasticos  usurpatur 
hoc  vocabulum.  Quod  autem  nonnulli  hoc  loco  interpretati  sunt  coe- 
turn  episcoporum,  nisi  per  cpiscopos  intelligas  simplices  presbyteros, 
?iolenta  est  interpretatio  et  sensus  insolens,"  &c. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


81 


you  will  do  what  has  not  been  done  by  any  of  your 
predecessors.  And,  2dly,  if  he  engaged  in  this  trans- 
action, I  challenge  you  to  show  that  he  did  any  thing 
more  than  as  one  of  the  presbytery.  The  Apostles, 
you  know,  acted  occasionally  not  as  extraordinary  but 
as  ordinary  ministers.  They  officiated  as  deacons, 
when  they  served  the  tables  of  the  poor  before  the 
office  of  deacon  was  instituted.  And  as  they  repre- 
sent themselves  sometimes  as  presbyters,  (1  Pet.  v.  1,) 
so  they  seem  to  have  acted  in  that  character  in  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem,  for  they  assumed  no  superiority 
over  the  presbyters,  the  latter  having  come  together, 
as  well  as  the  Apostles,  "  to  consider  of  the  matter;" 
and  when  the  decision  was  pronounced,  "  after  no 
small  dissension  and  disputation,"  it  was  denominated 
"the  decrees,"  (Acts  xvi.  4,)  not  only  of  the  Apostles, 
but  of  the  presbyters.  Paul,  then,  for  any  thing  you 
can  prove  to  the  contrary,  if  he  had  any  thing  to  do 
with  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  might  do  it  merely 
as  one  of  the  presbytery,  in  which  case  it  must  be  evi- 
dent that  your  argument  fails.  And  you  have  no 
right  to  allege  that  he  laid  on  his  hands  authorita- 
tively, and  the  rest  of  the  presbytery  only  to  express 
their  concurrence,  because  Timothy  is  said  to  have 
received  his  office  "  with  (i*tta)  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery,"  while  he  is  represented  as 
receiving  another  gift  (2  Tim.  i.  6.)  "  by  the 
hands  of  the  Apostle."  Mma,  you  must  be  sensible, 
frequently  denotes  instrumentality,  as  in  Acts  xiv. 
27,  and  xv.  4,  where  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  said  to 
have  declared  all  things  that  God  had  done  "  with 
them,"  i.  e.  as  his  instruments  to  accomplish  them; 
and  such  also  is  the  sense  in  which  it  appears  to  be 
taken  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  intimating  that  the  instrumen- 
tality by  which  Timothy  received  his  office  from  the 
great  King  and  Head  of  the  Church  was  "  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  or,  as  they  are 
denominated  by  Dr.  Forbes,  the  Consessus  Presbyte- 
rorum.  And  no  hint  is  given,  that  when  they  laid  on 
their  hands  one  of  them  did  it  authoritatively,  and  the 
others  merely  to  express  their  consent,  and  you  can- 

6 


S2 


LETTERS  ON 


not  produce  a  single  instance  where  any  thing  like  this 
was  done  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  I  trust,  then,  I 
may  affirm  of  the  whole  of  these  evasions  which  have 
been  employed  by  Episcopalians  to  set  aside  the  argu- 
ment from  this  memorable  passage  for  Presbyterian 
ordination,  that  they  are  utterly  groundless;  and  I 
would  say  to  you  in  the  words  of  Whitaker,  one  of 
the  most  learned  of  your  ancient  divines,  which  he 
addressed  to  Bellarmine,  when  he  denied  like  you  the 
validity  of  our  orders,  "this  place  serveth  our  par- 
pose  mightily,  for  we  understand  from  it  that  Timo- 
thy had  hands  laid  upon  him  by  presbyters,  who  at 
that  time  governed  the  Church  by  a  common  coun- 
cil."* 

It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  agreeably  to  what 
is  stated  by  that  able  writer,  the  government  of  the 
Church  was  committed  to  presbyters.  It  was  not  a 
diocesan  bishop,  but  the  rulers  of  the  Church  of  Cor- 
inth whom  Paul  commanded  to  cast  out  from  their 
communion  the  incestuous  person,  (1  Cor.  v.)  It  was 
the  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  of  whom 
there  appears  to  have  been  a  number,  (and  who 
therefore  could  not  be  diocesan  prelates,  as  there 
could  be  only  one  of  them  in  the  same  city,)  whom 
he  exhorts  not  merely  to  feed,  but  govern,  noipavuv, 
that  part  of  the  Church  of  God;  Acts  xx.  17 — 28. 
Presbyters,  as  we  have  seen,  sat  in  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem  along  with  the  Apostles,  and  united  with 
them  in  pronouncing  the  decision,  BoypaA    It  is  of 

*  Controv.  2,  Quaest.  5,  cap.  v.  p.  509. 

t  The  same  view  of  the  powers  of  presbyters  is  given  by  Bishop 
Jewel  in  the  Defence  of  his  Apology,  p.  527.  "  JTe  say,"  he  observes, 
"the  priests  and  deacons  waited  only  upon  the  bishops,  but  sentence 
in  council  they  might  give  none.  This  tale  were  true,  M.  Harding, 
if  every  your  word  were  a  gospel.  Cut  S.  Luke  would  have  told  you 
far  otherwise.  For,  speaking  of  the  first  Christian  council  holden  in 
the  Apostles'  time,  he  saith  thus,  Apostoli  et  Seniores,  &c.  The 
Apostles  and  Elders  met  together,  to  take  order  touching  this  mat- 
ter. And  again,  in  the  conclusion,  Placuit  Apostolis  et  Senioribus, 
&c. ;  it  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  together  with  the 
whole  Church.  Here  you  sec  the  Apostles  and  Elders  give  their 
voice  together.  Nicephoius  saith,  Athanasius,  being  not  a  bishop, 
but  one  of  the  chief  deacons  of  Alexandria,  was  not  the  least  part  of 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


S3 


them  that  he  says  to  the  Thessalonians,  (1st  Thess.  v. 
12,  13,)  (for  they  are  represented  as  ministers  who 
laboured  in  preaching  the  word,)  "  And  we  beseech 
you,  brethren,  to  know  them  which  labour  among 
you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish 
you;  and  to  esteem  them  very  highly  in  love  for  their 
work's  sake."  It  is  of  the  same  class  of  ministers, 
and  not  of  diocesan  bishops,  who  seldom  preach,  that 
he  says  to  the  Hebrews,  (Hebrews  xiii.  7vj  "  Remem- 
ber them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  which  have 
spoken  unto  you  the  ivord  of  God;  whose  faith  fol- 
low, considering  the  end  of  their  conversation."  And 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  more  explicit  testimony 
to  their  ecclesiastical  authority,  than  that  which  he 
gives  in  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  (v.  17,)  where  he 
says,  "  Let  the  elders,"  or  presbyters,  "  that  rule  well 
be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they 
who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine."  And  though 
he  says  to  the  Evangelist  in  the  nineteenth  verse, 
"  Against  an  elder"  or  presbyter  "  receive  not  an 
accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  as  I 
shall  show  you  more  fully  afterwards,  he  could  not 
intend  to  exclude  the  presbyters  from  judging  of  the 
case,  or  they  would  not  have  been  rulers ;  or  when 
the  Evangelist  judged  of  it  along  with  them,  to  assign 
to  him  a  power  superior  to  theirs,  or  he  would  have 
invested  him  with  authority  superior  to  what  was 
claimed  by  the  very  Apostles  in  the  Synod  of  Jerusa- 
lem. And  it  can  no  more  be  inferred  from  what  is 
mentioned  in  that  verse,  that  he  alone  was  to  receive 
an  accusation  against  a  presbyter,  and  judge  of  it, 
when  we  connect  it  with  what  is  said  in  the  seven- 
teenth verse,  than  that  he  alone  was  to  "  give  attend- 
ance to  reading,  to  exhortation,  to  doctrine,  to  preach 
the  word,  and  be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season, 
reprove,  rebuke,  exhort,  with  all  long-suffering  and 
doctrine,"  &c.  because  he  was  enjoined  by  the  Apos- 

thc  Council  of  Nice,  (Niccph.  lib.  8,  cap.  15.)  Tcrtullian  saith,  Pre- 
sident probati  Seniores,  &c.  The  judges  in  such  ecclesiastical  assem- 
blies, be  the  best  allowed  Elders,  having  obtained  that  honour  not  for 
money,  but  by  the  witness  of  their  brethren,"  &c. 


S4 


LETTERS  ON 


tie,  (1  Tim.  iv.  13,  2  Tim.  iv.  2,)  to  attend  to  the  per- 
formance of  these  duties.  And  though  he  command- 
ed him,  (1  Tim.  v.  22,)  to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on 
no  man,"  it  is  evident  that  it  could  not  be  the  design 
of  Paul  to  represent  it  as  a  power  peculiar  to  Timo- 
thy, and  which  he  was  not  to  exercise  along  with  the 
presbyters,  since  he  had  stated  expressly  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  that  the  Evangelist  himself  had  been 
ordained  by  presbyters.  Besides,  every  ordination 
of  a  bishop  which  was  performed  by  Timothy,  if  he 
acted  merely  as  a  bishop,  and  made  it  alone,  would 
have  been  invalid  upon  the  principles  of  Episcopa- 
lians ;  for,  according  to  Bishop  Beveridge  on  the 
second  Apostolic  Canon,  three  bishops  are  indispen- 
sable on  ordinary  occasions,  and  not  less  than  two 
can  do  it  in  cases  of  necessity.  And  if  Paul  alone 
ordained  Timothy,  and  did  so  merely  as  a  bishop, 
Timothy's  ordination,  too,  must  have  been  invalid. 

If  such,  however,  are  the  powers  which  are  assign- 
ed to  presbyters,  it  is  certainly  surprising  that  you 
should  compare  the  conduct  of  Presbyterians,  when 
they  ordain  their  clergy,  to  that  of  Korah,  Dathan, 
and  Abiram,  who  assumed  the  powers  of  the  priests, 
and  taught  even  the  common  people  to  do  the  same, 
and  insinuate  so  plainly  that  they  will  share  in  their 
punishment.  I  had  supposed,  that  from  your  situa- 
tion as  Professor  of  Hebrew,  you  could  not  fail  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  would 
have  known  that  these  rebels  did  not  belong  to  the 
priesthood  at  all,  the  first  of  them  being  only  a  Le~ 
vite,  or  an  assistant  of  the  priests,  and  the  two  others 
being  of  the  tribe  of  Reuben.  And  yet  they  per- 
formed the  highest  functions  of  the  priesthood,  and 
informed  the  congregation  that  they  too  might  per- 
form them,  and  that  the  sacerdotal  office  was  unne- 
cessary, because  "  they  were  all  holy,"  as  well  as 
Moses  and  Aaron.  And  will  you  venture  to  say, 
after  the  statements  which  have  been  produced  from 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  that  Presbyterian  ministers  are 
not  ministers,  and  that  they  tell  the  members  of  their 
congregations  that  they  may  preach,  baptize,  ordain, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


85 


and  bear  rule,  and  do  every  thing  which  is  performed 
by  their  instructors  and  rulers?  Such,  sir,  was  the 
sin  of  these  ancient  transgressors.  Will  you,  Mr. 
Newman,  Mr.  Percival,  or  Mr.  Gladstone,  say  it  is 
ours?  It  is  melancholy  to  see  such  charges,  which 
were  wont  to  be  heard  only  from  the  advocates  of 
Popery  in  former  times,  brought  forward  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  nineteenth  century  by  the  ministers  and 
members  of  your  Protestant  Church  against  their 
Presbyterian  brethren.  It  is  difficult  to  speak  of  them 
in  the  terms  which  they  deserve;  and  I  owe  it  to 
myself,  and  to  the  cause  which  I  defend,  that  I  should 
not  attempt  it,  but  pass  them  over  in  silence. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  VI. 


Additional  evidence  that  the  principal  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
rejected  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  pleaded  for  that  form  of  eccle- 
siastical polity,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  they  considered  it  as  better 
adapted  to  absolute  monarchy.  Testimonies  against  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopacy,  and  acknowledging  that  Presbyteriariism  is  sanctioned  by 
Scripture,  from  the  writings  of  Tindal,  Barnes,  Lambert,  Cranmer,  Ton- 
stall,  Stokesly,  Jewel,  Redman,  Robertson,  George  Cranmer,  Willet, 
Bedell,  and  Lord  Digby. 

Reverend  Sir, — If  you  were  able  to  prove  that  the 
Christian  ministry  is  to  be  found  no  where  except  in 
Episcopalian  churches,  because  they  alone  have  pos- 
sessed it  in  an  uninterrupted  succession  through  dio- 
cesan bishops  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  that 
none  but  these  bishops  are  able  to  preserve  it,  it  would 
be  exceedingly  alarming  to  Presbyterian  churches. 
Their  ministers,  as  you  allege,  would  be  unworthy  of 
the  name;  their  services  would  be  productive  of  no 
spiritual  benefit;  their  sacraments  would  communi- 
cate no  grace,  and  their  members  could  not  too  soon 
renounce  their  fellowship,  and  apply  for  admission 


S6 


LETTERS  ON" 


into  your  more  favoured  churches.  But  before  they 
do  so,  there  are  two  important  points  on  which  you 
must  give  them  complete  satisfaction:  1st,  That  God 
has  instituted  the  order  of  diocesan  bishops  to  pre- 
serve the  true  apostolical  succession,  and  that  they 
alone  can  do  it;  and,  2dly,  that  that  succession  has 
never  been  broken,  but  exists  entire  in  Episcopalian 
churches,  whether  Popish  or  Protestant,  so  as  to  give 
perfect  validity  to  the  acts  of  its  ministers.  I  propose, 
accordingly,  to  examine  the  evidence  in  support  of 
these  positions,  and  if  it  fail  as  to  either,  we  shall  not 
only  be  prevented  from  joining  your  communion,  but 
it  will  be  impossible  to  see  how  any  one  can  do  it; 
for  it  will  follow  upon  your  principles,  that  there  can 
neither  be  a  Church,  nor  a  Christian  minister,  nor 
even  a  single  individual  with  a  revealed  or  cove- 
nanted title  to  salvation,  at  present  in  the  world. 

You  will  consider  me  perhaps  as  more  bold  than 
prudent  in  attempting  to  controvert  the  first  of  these 
positions,  for  Archdeacon  Daubeny  had  said,  that 
;'  the  most  famous  leaders  of  the  Presbyterians,  Blon- 
del  and  Salmasius,  had  failed,  and  he  would  venture 
to  predict,  that  no  Dissenter"  or  Presbyterian  Church- 
man, "  of  learning  and  character  would  now  choose 
to  enter  the  field  against  a  Churchman  of  the  same 
description,  on  the  subject  of  Church  government."* 
You  will  permit  me,  however,  to  place  in  opposition 
to  the  first  part  of  his  opinion  respecting  the  success 
of  these  writers,  that  of  a  much  more  able  and  com- 
petent judge,  the  celebrated  Ernesti,  who,  in  his  MS. 
Lectures  on  Church  History,  which  were  never  pub- 
lished, but  which,  through  the  kindness  of  a  venera- 
ble departed  friend,  who  was  one  of  his  students,  I 
have  been  permitted  to  peruse,  made  the  following 
remarks  on  their  two  principal  works:  "Salmasius 
wrote  an  admirable  book  that  same  year  upon  bishops 
and  presbyters,  under  the  name  of  Walo  Messalinus, 
in  which  he  ably  replied  to  Petavius.  But  afterwards 
another  combatant  made  his  appearance  in  this  con- 

*  Appendix  to  his  Guide,  pp.  18,  19. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


87 


troversy,  who  handled  this  argument  still  more  elabo- 
rately, namely,  David  Blondel,  a  Dutch  divine,  and 
one  most  thoroughly  conversant  in  these  matters. 
He  published  his  book  at  Amsterdam  in  the  year 
1646,  under  the  title  of  an  Apology  for  the  Opinion 
of  St.  Jerome  respecting  bishops  and  presbyters,  and 
no  where  is  the  subject  discussed  with  such  ability. 
Hammond  replied  to  him  in  four  dissertations,  which 
were  published  at  London  in  1651,  but  in  these  he 
has  said  nothing  to  the  purpose."*  And  in  regard 
to  the  latter,  I  shall  briefly  observe,  that  as  I  write 
for  truth  and  not  for  victory,  no  consideration  of  a 
personal  nature  shall  prevent  me  from  inviting  a  fair, 
and  full,  and  dispassionate  inquiry  into  a  point  of 
such  high  and  paramount  importance,  as  you  are 
disposed  to  represent  it  to  the  Christian  Church. 

I  have  stated  already,  as  a  negative  argument 
against  the  institution  of  the  order  of  diocesan  bishops, 
that  no  account  is  delivered  in  Scripture  of  the  quali- 
fications which  are  necessary  to  fit  them  for  their  of- 
fice, which  appears  to  me  unaccountable  if  their  office 
was  to  be  permanent,  and  not  merely  temporary,  like 
those  of  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  And  I  have  re- 
ferred to  the  opinion  of  a  number  of  your  Reformers, 
as  well  as  of  many  eminent  individuals  several  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  the  Reformation,  who  united 
with  the  Presbyterians  of  the  present  day  in  declaring 
their  conviction,  that  bishops  had  no  superiority  to 
presbyters  by  divine  appointment,  and  that  wherever 
it  existed  it  was  a  mere  human  institution.  But  in 
addition  to  these,  I  beg  to  subjoin  a  few  extracts  from 
others  who  occupied  a  distinguished  place  among 
your  martyrs  and  your  most  learned  dignitaries,  and 
who,  after  studying  profoundly  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
have  left  their  testimony  to  this  great  and  leading 
principle  of  Presbyterians,  that  not  merely  the  names 
of  presbyters  and  bishops  are  applied  indiscriminately 
to  the  same  individuals,  but  that  there  ought  to  be  no 

*  Huic  opposuit  Hammondus  dipsertationibus  quatuor  quae  prodic- 
rnnt  Londino  1651.    Scd  iis  nil  effecit,  &c. 


ss 


LETTERS  ON 


pre-eminence  of  the  one  above  the  other,  as  far  as  can 
be  ascertained  from  the  Word  of  God. 

Can  any  thing,  for  instance,  express  this  more 
strongly  than  the  following  quotation  from  the  works 
of  Tindal,,who  is  usually  denominated  the  Apostle  of 
your  Reformation?  "  The  Apostles,"  says  he,  "fol- 
owyng  and  obeying  the  rule,  doctrine  and  command- 
ment of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  their  Master,  or- 
deined  in  his  kingdom  and  congregation  two  officers ; 
one  called  after  the  Greeke  worde  Bishop,  in  English, 
an  Oversear,  ivhich  same  was  called  Priest  after  the 
Greeke,  Elder  in  English,  because  of  his  age,  discre- 
tion and  sadnesse,  (gravity,)  for  he  was  nigh  as  could 
be  alway  an  elderly  man.  And  this  oversear  did  put 
his  handes  unto  the  plow  of  God's  worde,  and  fed 
Christe's  flocke,  and  tended  them  onely  without  look- 
ing unto  any  other  businesse  in  the  world."  And 
"  another  officer  they  chose,  and  called  him  Deacon 
after  the  Greeke,  a  Minister  in  English,  to  minister 
the  alms  of  the  people  unto  the  poore  and  nedy."* 

"A  byshop,"  says  Barnes,  "was  instituted  to  in- 
structe  and  teach  the  cytie,  and  therefore  he  might 
have  as  much  underneath  him  as  hee  iccre  able  to 
preach  and  teach  to.  And  if  in  one  place  of  Scrip- 
ture they  be  called  Episcopi,  in  divers  other  places 
they  be  called  Presbiteri."t 

"As  touching  priesthood,"  says  the  godly  Lambert, 
"in  the  primitive  Church,  when  vertue  bare  (as  an- 
cient Doctors  do  deem,  and  Scripture,  in  mine  opinion, 
recordeth  the  same)  most  room,  there  tvere  no  more 
officers  in  the  Church  of  God  than  bishops  and  dea- 
cons, that  is  to  say,  ministers,  as  witnesseth,  beside 
Scripture,  full  apertly,  Hierome,  in  his  Commentaries 
upon  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  whereas  he  saith,  that 

*  Practise  of  the  Popishe  Prelates,  p.  345.  of  his  Works.  Consult, 
too,  the  section  in  the  following  page,  entitled,  "  By  what  means  the 
Prelates  fell  from  Christ." 

This  view  of  the  office  of  the  deacons  corresponds  exactly  with  what 
is  said  of  the  end  for  which  it  was  appointed,  Acts,  vi.  and  with  the 
sentiments  of  Presbyterians,  and  differs  from  those  of  Episcopalians, 
who  have  changed  also  this  part  of  the  institutions  of  Christ. 

t  Works,  213—221. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


89 


those  whom  we  call  priests  were  all  one,  and  none 
other  but  bishops,  and  the  bishops  none  other  but 
priests,  men  ancient  both  in  age  and  learning,  so  near 
as  they  could  be  chosen."*  I  would  like  to  know  if 
this  is  not  Presbyterianism. 

It  deserves  likewise  to  be  noticed,  as  is  mentioned 
by  Neal,  that  even  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Sixth, 
<(the  form  of  ordaining  a  priest  and  a  bishop  was 
the  same,  there  being  no  express  mention,  in  the 
words  of  ordination,  whether  it  was  for  the  one  or  the 
other  office.  And  though  this,"  says  he,  "  has  been 
altered  of  late  years,  since  a  distinction  of  the  two 
orders  has  been  so  generally  admitted,  yet  it  was  not 
the  received  doctrine  of  these  times."t 

*  Fox's  Monuments,  vol.  ii.  p.  33G. 
t  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  64. 

"Of  these  two  orders  only,  that  is  to  say,  priests  and  deacons,"  says 
the  Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man,  "Scripture  maketh  ex- 
press mention." 

"Even  Tonstall  and  Stokesly,"  says  Sheerwood,  in  his  Answere  to 
Downam,  p.  21,  "latterly  writt  in  their  letters  to  Cardinal  Poole.  S. 
Jerome,  say  they,  as  well  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
as  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  showeth  that  those  primacyes,  long 
after  Christ's  ascension,  were  made  by  the  device  of  men."  "And  in 
the  margin,"  he  adds,  "  this  note  is  set,  Difference  between  bishops 
and  priests  how  it  came  in." 

"  The  bishops  and  priests,"  said  Cranmer,  (Appendix  to  Burnet's 
Hist,  of  the  Reform.,  vol.  i.  p.  223,)  "  were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two 
things,  but  both  one.  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion." 

"They  be  of  like  beginning,"  said  Dr.  Redmayn,  "and  at  the  be- 
ginning were  both  one,  as  St.  Hierome  and  other  old  authors  show  by 
the  Scripture,  wherefore  one  made  another  indifferently." 

The  Bishop  of  London,  and  Drs.  Robertson  and  Edgworth,  stated 
it  as  their  opinion,  that  "they  saw  no  inconvenience,  though  it  were 
granted  that  in  the  primitive  Church  the  priests  made  bishops ;"  Bur- 
net, vol.  i.  Append,  p.  225.  And  says  Dr.  Cox,  who  acted  a  conspic- 
uous part  both  under  Edward  the  Sixth  and  Elizabeth,  "  Although  by 
Scripture,"  (as  S.  Hierome  saith,)  "priests  and  bishops  were  one,  and 
therefore  the  one  not  before  the  other  ;  yet  bishops  as  they  be  now 
were  after  priests,  and  therefore  made  of  priests."    Ibid.  p.  224. 

I  may  add,  that  Stillingfleet  makes  the  following  candid  statement 
respecting  the  opinion  of  Cranmer,  and  mentions  the  ground  on  which 
he  concurred  in  consenting  that  Episcopacy  should  remain.  "Thus 
we  see,"  says  he,  (Irenicum,  part  2,  chap.  8,)  "by  the  testimony 
chiefly  of  him  who  was  instrumental  in  our  Reformation,  that  he 
owned  not  Episcopacy  as  a  distinct  order  from  Presbytery  of  divine 
right,  but  only  as  a  prudent  constitution  of  the  civil  magistrate  for 
the  better  governing  of  the  Church." 


90 


LETTERS  OS 


"  But  what  meant  M.  Harding  heere,"  says  Jewel, 
"to  come  in  with  the  difference  betweene  priests  and 
bishops?  Thinketh  lie  that  priests  and  bishops  hold 
only  by  tradition  ?  Or  is  it  so  horrible  an  heresie,  as 
hee  maketh  it,  to  say  that  by  the  Scriptures  of  God  a 
bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one  ?  Verely,  Chrysostome 
sayth,  betweene  a  bishop  and  a  priest  in  a  manner 
there  is  no  difference.  S.  Hierome  saith,  somewhat  in 
rougher  sort,  I  heare  there  is  one  become  so  peevish, 
that  he  setteth  deacons  before  priests  that  is  to  say, 
bishops;  whereas  the  Apostle  plainly  teucheth  us, 
that  priests  and  bishops  be  all  one." ' 

And  omitting  what  is  stated  by  Stillingfleet,  of  the 
sentiments  of  Whitgift,  Cousins,  and  Bridges,  it  would 
appear  from  what  is  said  by  Mr.  George  Cranmer,  a 
relation  of  the  Archbishop,  that  the  majority  even  of 
your  most  eminent  clergy  held  Presbyterian  principles, 
or  were  favourably  disposed  towards  them  after  the 
accession  of  Elizabeth.  "  It  may  be  remembered," 
he  observes,  a  that  at  the  first  the  greatest  part  of  the 
learned  in  the  land  were  either  eagerly  affected  or 
favourably  inclined  that  way.  The  books  then  writ- 
ten for  the  ?nost  part  savoured  of  the  disciplinary 
style  :  it  sounded  every  where  in  pulpits,  and  in  com- 
mon phrases  of  men's  speech :  the  contrary  part  began 
to  fear  they  had  taken  a  wrong  course ;  many  which 
impugned  the  discipline,  (Presbyteriau  Church  gov- 
ernment,) yet  so  impugned  it,  not  as  being  the  better 
form  of  government, \m\  asnot  being  so  convenient  for 

*  Defense  of  his  Apology,  p.  202. 

It  has  been  alleged,  I  am  aware,  that  this  account  of  his  sentiments 
must  certainly  be  incorrect,  because  he  advocated  warmly  the  cause 
of  Episcopacy,  in  a  paper  about  Metropolitans,  which  was  published 
under  his  name,  by  Whitgift,  after  his  death.  This  quotation  how- 
ever, which  is  undoubtedly  his,  and  the  sentiments  of  which  he  never 
disavowed  during  his  life,  as  well  as  other  passages  equally  striking, 
which  might  easily  have  been  added,  will  speak  for  themselves.  And 
it  is  not  a  little  surprising,  if  that  paper  was  his,  that  he  should  be 
classed  by  Hooker,  or  rather  Bishop  Gauden,  among  those  who  be- 
lieved that  Episcopacy  was  a  mere  human  institution,  (Eccles.  Polity, 
book  7,  p.  395,)and  that  both  he  and  Whitgift  should  be  represented 
by  Willct,  who  lived  after  them,  (Synopsis,  p.  273,)  as  holding  that 
opinion. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


91 


our  Stale,  in  regard  of  dangerous  innovations  there- 
by likely  to  grow."*  And  even  under  the  reign  of 
James,  the  adherents  to  Presbytery  seem  to  have  been 
very  numerous  among  the  best  of  the  laity,  for  says 
Downam,  "Which  things,  when  I  consider  h^w  fewe 
among  the  people  (in  comparison)  do  care  for  religion, 
and  of  those  few  how  many  are  (I  am  sory  to  speake 
it)  schismatically,  i.  e.  presbyterially  disposed,  doe 
make  my  heart  to  sorow,  and  my  bowels  to  yearne 
in  commiseration  of  them."t  And  while  it  was  de- 
nied by  Willet,  that  "  the  distinction  of  bishops  and 
priests  is  by  the  commandment  and  institution  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,"^  it  was  acknowledged  at  a 
still  later  period  by  Bishop  Bedell,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  prelates  who  ever  adorned  your  Church, 
that  "  bishops  and  presbyters  were  precisely  the 
same."  When  Waddesworth,  accordingly,  objected 
to  the  reformers,  "  Yea,  but  in  France,  Holland  and 
Germany,  they  have  no  bishops,  Bedell  replied,  First, 
what  if  I  should  defend  they  have  ?  Because  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  are  all  one,  (these  Churches  had  only 
presbyters,)  as  S.  Jerome  maintains,  and  proves  oute 
of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  use  of  Antiquity.  Of 
which  judgment,  as  Medina  confesseth,  are  sundry  of 
the  ancient  fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin  ;  S.  Am- 
brose, Augustine,  Sedulius,  Primasius,  Chrysostome, 
Theodoret,  Oecumenius  and  Theophylact,  which  point 
I  have  largely  treated  of  in  another  place  against  him 
that  undertook  Master  Alabaster's  quarrel. "§  And 
in  addition  to  these  testimonies  to  Presbyterian  prin- 
ciples by  your  martyrs  and  reformers,  and  many  of 
your  bishops  who  approved  of  Episcopacy  on  the 
ground  only  of  expediency,  I  may  mention  the  frank 
and  candid  confession  of  the  gallant  Lord  Digby,  a 
zealous  royalist  and  friend  of  your  Church  in  the  days 
of  Charles  the  First.  "They,"  said  he,  '-who  would 
reduce  the  Church  to  the  form  of  government  thereof 

*  Letter  to  Hooker,  February  1588,  prefixed  to  the  Ecclesiastical 
Polity. 

+  Preface  to  his  Sermon. 

t  Synopsis  Papismi,  p.  27G.  §  Bedell's  Life,  p.  453. 


92 


LETTERS  ON  PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


in  the  primitive  times,  would  be  found  peeking  to- 
wards the  Presbytery  of  Scotland."  Which,  he  ob- 
serves to  his  relative,  Sir  Kenelm,  a  bigoted  Papist, 
"for  my  part  I  believe  in  point  of  government  cometh 
nearer  ihan  either  yours  or  ours  of  Episcopacy  to 
the  first  age  of  Christ's  Church."* 

If  such,  however,  were  the  sentiments  of  these 
illustrious  individuals  upon  the  point  in  question, 
and  more  illustrious  individuals  never  adorned  your 
Church;  and  if  they  included,  as  we  have  seen,  ex- 
clusively of  those  who  were  formerly  mentioned,  not 
merely  a  few  scattered  dissentients  from  the  general 
body,  but  your  holiest  martyrs  during  the  reign  of 
Henry,  your  most  distinguished  reformers  during  the 
reign  of  Edward,  and  "  the  majority  of  the  learned" 
during  the  greater  part  at  least  of  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, as  well  as  Wickliff,  and  Huss,  and  the  other 
venerable  men  who  laboured  zealously  for  the  puri- 
fication of  the  Church  for  hundreds  of  years  before 
the  Reformation,  two  important  consequences  seem 
necessarily  to  result  from  it.  In  the  first  place,  what- 
ever may  be  the  principles  of  some  of  your  divines  in 
the  present  day,  it  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  your 
early  fathers,  and  of  the  pillars  of  your  Church,  to 
maintain  that  Episcopacy  is  of  divine  institution;  and, 
2dly,  if  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  in 
later  times,  in  support  of  this  position,  could  not  sat- 
isfy the  minds,  not  only  of  a  Cranmer  and  a  Cox,  but 
of  a  Jewel,  and  a  Reynolds,  and  a  Pilkington,  and  a 
Hooper,  it  presents  a  very  strong  and  natural  pre- 
sumption, that  they  are  destitute  of  the  force  which 
you  are  disposed  to  ascribe  to  them. 
I  am,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  See  his  Letter  to  Sir  Kenelm,  as  quoted  by  Crofton  on  Re-ordina- 
tion, p.  18. 


93 


LETTER  VII. 

The  argument  for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  from  the  different  orders  in  the 
ministry  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  examined,  and  proved  to  be  more 
favourable  to  Popery  than  to  Prelacy. — As  far  as  it  establishes  the  latter, 
it  furnishes  a  precedent  merely  for  a  single  bishop  in  a  nation,  with  far 
more  limited  powers  than  those  of  any  modern  bishop. — No  resemblance 
between  the  powers  anil  functions  of  the  Jewish  priests  and  Levites, 
and  those  of  priests  and  deacons  in  Episcopalian  Churches. — Argument 
acknowledged  to  be  inconclusive  by  some  of  the  leading  defenders  of 
Episcopacy 

Reverend  Sir, — The  first  of  those  arguments  which 
have  been  advanced  by  the  advocates  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy  in  support  of  their  principles,  has  been 
derived  from  the  constitution  of  the  Old  Testament 
Church;  for  as  there  was  a  hierarchy  under  the  Jew- 
ish, they  contend  that  there  ought  to  be  one  under  the 
Christian  dispensation;  "the  bishop  as  supreme  gov- 
ernor answering  to  the  high-priest  under  the  law;  the 
presbyters  and  deacons  to  the  priests  and  Levites 
as  subordinate  ministers  in  it."'*  Now,  upon  this 
strange  analogy,  as  stated  by  Daubeny,  and  Hooker, 
and  Jones,  and  made  the  basis  of  an  argument,  from 
mere  imagination,  for  your  ecclesiastical  system,  with- 
out any  authority  from  Scripture,  I  would  make 
the  following  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  relinquished  by  some  of  the 
most  enlightened  defenders  of  Episcopacy  as  com- 
pletely untenable. 

"  From  these  superior  and  inferior  degrees  among 
the  priests  and  Levites  under  Moses,"  says  Bishop 
Bilson,  "happily  may  no  necessarie  consequent  be 
drawne  to  force  the  same  to  bee  observed  in  the 
Church  of  Christ."  And  after  stating  three  reasons 
for  that  opinion,  he  adds,  "  Lastly,  the  services  about 
the  then  sanctuarie  and  sacrifices,  (which  none  might 
doe  but  Levites,)  were  of  divers  sorts,  and  therefore 
not  without  great  regard,  were  there  divers  degrees 
established  amongst  them;  though  to  serve  God  even 
in  the  least  of  them  was  honourable.    Now,  in  the 


*  Guide  to  the  Church,  p.  34,  35. 


94 


LETTERS  ON 


Church  of  Christ,  the  word  and  sacraments  committed 
to  the  pastors  and  ministers  have  no  different  services, 
and  so  require  for  the  service  thereof  no  discrepant 
offices."*  And  says  Willet  to  Bellarmine,  when  he 
made  use  of  this  argument,  u  The  high-priest  in  the 
law  was  a  figure  of  Christ,  who  is  the  high-priest  of 
the  New  Testament  and  chiefe  shepheard,  1  Pet.  v.  4; 
and  therefore  this  type  being  fulfilled  in  Christ,  can- 
not properly  be  applied  to  the  external  hierarchie  of 
the  Church."  Besides,  "it  was  untrue  that  all  things 
were  governed  onely  at  the  will  of  the  high-priest,  for 
the  other  priests  also  were  their  assistants,  and  did 
debate  matters  in  councell  with  them."t 

2dly,  It  is  never  intimated  in  Scripture  that  the 
ministry  under  the  New  was  to  be  modelled  after  the 
ministry  of  the  Old  Dispensation. 

If  it  had  been  intended  by  God  that  there  should 
be  a  threefold  order  in  the  Christian  ministry,  corres- 
ponding to  the  orders  in  the  Jewish  priesthood,  it 
would  certainly  be  stated  in  some  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  or  the  names  of  the  ministers  of  the  Jew- 
ish orders  would  have  been  given  to  the  ministers  of 
the  Christian  Church.  Some  Apostle  acting  in  the 
character  of  a  prelate,  or  some  diocesan  bishop  would 
have  been  called  a  high-priest,  some  presbyter  a  priest, 
according  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome  and 
of  your  Church,  and  some  deacon  a  Levite,  as  bap- 
tism in  the  opinion  of  some  eminent  commentators  is 
denominated  circumcision,  Coloss.  ii.  11 — 13,  because 
it  succeeded  that  ordinance.  I  have  never,  however, 
met  with  any  intimation  of  the  intention  of  the  Al- 
mighty to  assimilate  the  ministry  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church  to  that  of  the  Old,  or  with  any  passage 
where  the  names  of  the  different  orders  of  the  latter 
are  applied  to  the  former,  and  if  you  have  been  more 
fortunate,  I  will  thank  you  to  mention  it.  We  read, 
indeed,  of  a  high-priest,  and  a  great  High-Priest,  under 
the  Gospel  dispensation;  but  he  is  the  great  minister 

•Treatise  on  the  Perpetuall  Government  of  Christ's  Church,  p.  12, 
13. 

t  Sjnopsis  Papi  mi,  Appendix  to  the  Fifth  General  Controversie. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


95 


of  the  Upper  Sanctuary,  and  not  any  minister  of  the 
Church  below.*  And  we  are  told  of  a  priesthood,  a 
holy  priesthood,  and  a  royal  priesthood,t  and  yet  it 
is  not  composed  of  presbyters,  according  to  your  in- 
terpretation and  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  of 
all  true  believers  who  offer  to  God  spiritual  sacrifices. 
And  though  it  is  mentioned  by  Paul,  (Heb.  viii.  5,) 
that  "  the  ancient  priests  served  unto  the  example  and 
shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  yet  he  does  not  mean 
to  tell  us  that  they  were  intended  to  be  a  type  of  the 
Christian  ministry.  It  may  be  the  tabernacle  which 
is  referred  to  in  that  passage,  as  in  Heb.  ix.  9,  as  the 
example  and  shadow;  and  the  phrase  may  be  trans- 
lated, "  who  serve  (the  tabernacle)  the  example  and 
shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  as  they  are  elsewhere 
represented  as  serving  it,  Heb.  x.  10.  And  even 
though  we  should  adopt  another  version,  and  render 
the  clause,  "  who  serve  for  the  example  and  shadow 
of  the  heavenly  tilings,"  it  will  not  warrant  the  ana- 
logy for  which  Episcopalians  contend ;  for  the  hea- 
venly things  are  not  the  different  orders  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  but,  as  is  elsewhere  stated,  (Heb.  v.  1,2, 
ix.  6-12,)  the  ministry  of  the  Redeemer,  our  great 
High-Priest  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  and  the  effects 
of  his  intercession.  If  not  the  smallest  hint,  then,  is 
to  be  met  with  in  Scripture,  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  God  to  model  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church 
after  that  of  the  Jewish,  it  is  plain  that  this  argument 
completely  fails.  And  if,  as  is  mentioned  by  Semon- 
ville,  the  Jews  did  not  consider  it  "  as  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  have  recourse  for  ordination  to  the  Nasci 
or  Prince  of  the  Sanhedrim,  but  the  elders  who  had 
received  imposition  of  hands  had  a  right  to  commu- 
nicate it  to  others,"^  their  practice  as  to  the  mode  of 

*  Heb.  ii.  17,  iii.  1,  iv.  14.    See  Scbtnidii  Concord,  on  the  word 

t  1  Pet.  ii.  5-9,  Rev.  i.  6,  &c.  See  Schmidius  on  the  words  ifftus 
and  ujnTn/Ax. 

t  Lea  Docteurs  Juifs  neanmoins  rcmarquent,  itc.,  torn.  i.  p.  470,  des 
Ceremonies  et  Coutumes  Religieuses. 

It  is  asserted  by  Bishop  Grleig,  (Anti-Jacobin  Review,  vol.  ix.  p. 
109,)  tliat  "as  the  Jews  weic  accustomed  to  a  bierarcby,  and  tbe 


96 


LETTERS  ON" 


conferring  orders,  and  their  sentiments  respecting  the 
powers  vested  in  elders,  resembled  more  nearly  those 
of  Presbyterians  than  those  of  the  friends  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy. 

In  the  third  place,  if  the  analogy  be  sanctioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  ministry  of  the  Christian 
is  to  be  assimilated  to  that  of  the  ancient  Church,  it 
will  furnish  an  argument  for  the  Papacy,  and  not  for 
your  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 

You  are  aware  that  there  was  only  a  single  indi- 
vidual in  the  highest  order  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy, 
and  that  he  acted  as  high-priest  to  the  whole  people 
of  Israel.  Several  high-priests  are  indeed  mentioned 
occasionally  as  living  at  the  same  time,  but,  as  is 
remarked  by  Ravius,  they  were  either  those  who, 
though  they  had  held  that  office,  were  deposed  by  the 
Romans,  and  retained  only  the  name,  or  the  heads  of 
the  twenty-four  courses  of  priests  of  the  second  order, 
who,  except  as  the  presidents  of  these  courses,  differed 
only  nominally  from  the  common  priests.*    And  as 

Gentiles  to  a  Pontifex  Maximus,  and  as  they  saw  the  worship  and 
discipline  of  the  Church  conducted  by  the  three  orders  of  apostles, 
presbyters  and  deacons,  they  could  not  fail  to  believe  that  all  these 
orders  were  to  be  permanent,  if  not  expressly  taught  the  contrary  by 
the  inspired  writers."  But  they  would  not  require  to  be  told  this,  if, 
as  will  be  proved  afterwards,  the  qualifications  mentioned  in  Scripture 
as  necessary  for  the  apostolic  office,  could  not  be  attained  by  others 
after  the  death  of  these  who  first  held  it  Besides  it  is  a  more  natu- 
ral inference,  that  as  the  practice  of  ordination,  the  most  important 
part  of  ecclesiastical  government,  was  borrowed  from  the  Jews,  and 
as  it  was  performed  among  them  not  only  by  their  Nasci  or  the  Pre- 
sident of  the  Sanhedrim,  as  the  representative  of  that  body,  but  by 
any  three  of  their  elders,  they  could  not  fail  to  believe,  unless  they 
were  told  the  contrary,  that  the  same  thing  would  be  done  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

I  know  that  Cyprian  and  others  of  the  fathers  argue  for  assimila- 
ting the  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry  to  those  in  the  Jewish.  But 
they  traced  a  resemblance  also,  as  might  be  easily  proved,  between 
it  and  the  officers  of  an  army,  and  the  governors  of  an  empire;  and 
latterly,  when  the  clergy  became  more  ambitious,  they  assumed  the 
names  of  exarchs  and  other  political  dignitaries,  and  claimed  similar 
powers. 

*  "  Of  all  these  priests,"  says  Ikenius,  in  his  Antiquitates  Hebraic® 
p.  106,  "the  head  and  chief  was  denominated  the  high-priest,  and  of 
these,  by  the  law  of  God,  there  could  be  only  one  at  a  time,  '  Qualis 
ex  lege  Dei  eodem  tempore  non  nisi  unicus  crat,'  "  &c.    And  says 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


97 


this  office  was  held  only  by  a  single  individual,  so  he 
acted  as  high-priest  not  only  to  the  nation  of  Israel, 
as  has  sometimes  been  asserted,  but  to  the  whole 
ancient  Church,  whatever  might  be  its  extent.  That 
Church,  it  is  admitted,  consisted  indeed  principally  of 
a  single  nation;  but  still  it  included  also  the  people  of 
the  Gibeonites,  and  many  other  Gentiles,  and  their 
number  at  some  times  seems  to  have  been  very  con- 
siderable.* Nay,  whatever  might  be  the  proselytes 
who  should  be  converted  to  the  faith  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  and  however  distant  their  dwellings  from  the 
land  of  Canaan,  they  were  to  be  members  of  a  Church 
which  had  only  a  single  high-priest.  If  we  are  to 
follow,  therefore,  the  model  of  the  Jewish  hierarchy, 
we  must  adopt  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  different 
from  yours,  and  from  that  of  all  the  other  Protestant 

Ravius,  in  his  MS.  Lectures  on  that  excellent  compend,  with  which 
I  was  favoured  by  the  same  friend  from  whom  I  received  Ernesti, 
"  it  is  most  certain  that  there  could  be  only  a  single  high-priest  at  a 
time;  nor  is  it  at  all  inconsistent  with  this  that  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  speak  of  several  who  were  co-existing  at  once,  as  in 
Luke  iii.  2,  John  xviii.  13,  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas.  It  is  plain  from 
Matthew  xxvi.  3,  that  it  was  the  latter  alone  who  was  high-priest; 
but  they  were  wont  also  to  continue  the  name  to  such  of  the  high- 
priests  as  had  been  deprived  of  that  dignity  by  the  Romans,  which 
was  the  case  with  Annas,  or  Annanus,  who  had  been  degraded  from 
the  honour  by  Valerius  Gratus,  of  whom  it  is  recorded  by  Josephus, 
Antiq.  lib.  18,  cap.  2,  sec.  2,  that  after  he  had  been  sent  by  Tiberius 
into  Judea,  lie  changed  the  high-priests  almost  every  year.  Besides 
these,  there  are  sometimes  included  among  the  high-priests  those 
who,  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  14,  are  denominated  the  chiefs  or  heads 
of  the  priests,  as  is  evident  from  Acts  v.  24,  where  they  are  called 
(ut,  while  the  high-priest  receives  the  name  only  of  /sfst/c.  Pon- 
tiricim  maximum  non  nisi  unicum  fuisse  certissimum  est,"  &.c. 
See,  too,  Carpzovius,  p.  99  of  his  Apparatus  Antiquitatum,  who  says, 
"  Ea  tempestate  crebra  Pontificatus  translatio,  et  mercatura,  quam 
in  conferenda  hac  dighitata  agebant  Prasides  Syrire,  plures  efficeret 
A^(Sie/?,  unum  officio,  ca;tcros  nomine  gaudentes."  And  examine 
Dr.  Mill's  Prolegomena,  Nos.  1105  and  1184. 

The  Sagan,  it  is  well  known,  was  only  the  substitute  of  the  high- 
priest.  There  was  never  more  than  one  of  them  at  a  time,  and  he 
commonly  officiated  only  when  the  high-priest  was  prevented  by  ill- 
ness or  impurity  from  discharging  his  duty.  The  account  given  in 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  of  the  lour  trifling  services  in  which  he  acted 
for  the  high-priest,  is  altogether  fanciful. 

*  Esther  viii.  17,  Acts  ii.  5-10.  Moses  yEgyptius  in  Assurebiab, 
Derek  xiii.  fol.  137. 


7 


98 


LETTERS  OX 


Episcopal  Churches,  whose  bishops  must  be  laid  aside, 
and  though  in  some  respects  similar,  different  even 
from  Popery,  and  from  every  other  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical government  which  has  been  witnessed  by  the 
world.  We  would  assuredly  have  a  bishop,  but  there 
would  not  be  another  on  the  face  of  the  earth;  and 
all  the  cardinals  would  be  dismissed,  all  the  metropo- 
litans would  be  discarded,  and  all  the  vicars-apostolic, 
with  a  single  exception,  would  be  done  away;  for 
though  the  high-priest  had  a  deputy,  he  had  no  more 
than  one; — and  upon  that  single  Supreme  Universal 
Pontiff  would  devolve  the  performance  of  every  act 
of  confirmation,  ordination  and  jurisdiction,  not  only 
in  a  particular  country,  such  as  England,  or  France, 
or  Russia,  or  China,  supposing  it  to  be  evangelized, 
but  throughout  the  whole  Catholic  Church.  Such, 
sir,  is  the  tendency  of  this  boasted  analogy  between 
the  polity  of  the  Christian  and  the  Old  Testament 
Churches, — an  analogy,  I  confess,  which,  if  you  were 
able  to  establish  it,  would  be  completely  subversive 
of  Presbyterian  purity,  but  which  would  be  equally 
fatal  to  Episcopal  pre-eminence,  and  even  to  Popish 
supremacy,  and  which  would  introduce  a  system  not 
only  impracticable  in  itself,  but  in  a  great  measure 
dissimilar  to  every  other  government  which  has  ex- 
isted in  the  Church. 

Such,  accordingly,  is  the  light  in  which  it  has  been 
viewed  by  the  Papists,  who  have  derived  from  it,  they 
imagine,  an  irresistible  argument  for  a  universal  bishop. 
"  In  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,"  said  Costernus,  the 
Jesuit,  "in  which,  as  in  its  first  lineaments,  the  majesty 
of  the  Catholic  Church  was  shadowed  forth,  there  was 
only  one  Aaron  with  his  posterity,  who  was  set  over 
the  sacred  and  spiritual  concerns  of  the  people,  and 
that  not  merely  as  a  teacher,  or  superintendent  of  cere- 
monies, but  as  a  true  prince,  with  power  and  autho- 
rity."* And  said  the  Jesuits  of  Posnania,  "  We  may 
derive  from  the  Old  Testament  no  feeble  argument  for 

*  "  In  Judaeorum  nempe  synagoga,  in  qua  tanquam  primis  linea- 
mentis  majestas  Ecclesiae  Catholicae  adumbrata  fuit,  &c.  Enchir- 
idion Controversiarum,  p.  123. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


99 


the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  for  as  there  was  under  that 
dispensation  only  one  supreme  pontiff  in  succession, 
first  Aaron,  then  Eleazar,  and  then  others,  why  ought 
there  not  to  be  a  successor  to  the  high-priest  of  the  New 
Testament,  St.  Peter?"*  And  if  they  could  prove 
that  it  would  be  possible  for  any  individual,  assisted 
by  a  deputy  in  case  of  indisposition,  to  discharge  that 
office,  and  that  the  polity  of  the  Old  was  appointed  to 
be  retained  under  the  New  Dispensation,  their  reason- 
ing would  be  unanswerable.  And  such,  too,  is  the 
light  it  was  regarded  in,  not  only  by  the  Puritans,t  but 
even  by  Stillingfleet,  who  candidly  acknowledges,  that 
"  those  who  would  argue  from  Aaron's  power,  must 
either  bring  too  little  or  too  much  from  thence ; — too 
little,  if  we  consider  his  office  was  typical  and  cere- 
monial, and  as  high-priest,  had  more  immediate  re- 
spect to  God  than  men,  Heb.  v.  1,  and  therefore 
Eleazar  was  appointed  over  the  several  families  dur- 
ing Aaron's  lifetime,  and  under  Eleazar,  his  son  Phine- 
has; — too  much,  if  a  necessity  be  urged  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  same  authority  in  the  Church  of  God, 
which  is  the  argument  of  the  Papists,  deriving  the 
Pope's  supremacy  from  thence. "% 

And,  in  short,  I  would  remark,  that  though  you 
could  obviate  these  difficulties,  and  establish  this 
analogy,  it  would  furnish  you  at  most  with  the  mere 
shadow  of  an  argument,  and  scarcely  even  with  that 
in  favour  of  Episcopacy. 

As  there  was  only  one  high -priest  for  the  whole 
land  of  Israel,  all  that  you  could  deduce  from  it  would 
be  merely  that  there  ought  to  be  one  diocesan  bishop 
in  every  national  Church.  Nay,  this  single  high- 
priest  was  invested  with  his  office  by  the  inferior 

*  Disputationcs,  p.  1G3-164. 

t  Bradshaw's  English  Puritanism,  p.  40,  of  liis  Treatises  on  Wor- 
ship and  Ceremonies. 

{  Irenieum,  p.  174.  Carpzovius,  who  was  a  Lutheran  superintendent, 
says,  p.  66  of  his  Apparatus,  "  Scripture  is  ignorant  of  this  threefold 
typical  comparison  between  the  orders  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  JJis. 
pensation,  for  which  the  author  (Goodwin,  in  his  Moses  and  Aaron; 
contends,  and  which  has  been  the  fruitful  source  of  the  errors  of  the 
Papists.  Triplicem  autem  illam  quarn  auctor  in  medium  attulit,"  &c. 


100 


LETTERS  OX 


priests,*  and  latterly  by  the  Sanhedrim  :t  from  which 
it  would  evidently  follow,  that  not  only  ought  presby- 
ters, but  even  the  bishops  who  presided  over  every 
country,  to  be  ordained  by  presbyters.  And  it  does 
not  appear  from  Scripture  that  the  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion was  vested  in  him  exclusively,  but  he  exercised 
it  along  with  the  other  priests.^  And  it  is  observed 
by  Ikenius,  that  after  the  return  from  the  Captivity, 
even  when  he  was  president  of  the  Sanhedrim,  he 
was  subject  to  that  court, §  and  was  occasionally  judged 

*  If  it  be  alleged  that  he  might  perhaps  be  consecrated  by  the  Sagan, 
who  probably  would  be  anointed  and  made  nearly  equal  to  the  high- 
priest,  upon  his  being  raised  to  that  dignity,  it  is  remarked  byRavius, 
in  his  Lectures  on  Ikenius,  that  "  the  office  of  Sagan,  was  introduced 
only  during  the  later  and  more  corrupt  times  of  the  Jewish  State. 
Patet  haud  obscure  originem  muneris  sequiori  aevo  deberi."  And  it 
is  stated  by  Carpzovius,  that  he  had  no  unction  as  Sagan  besides  what 
he  possessed  as  a  common  priest. 

t  ''  The  installing  the  high-priest  into  his  office,"  says  Dr.  Ligl.t- 
foot,  vol.  i.  p.  905,  '•  was  by  the  Sanhedrim,  who  anointed  him,  or 
when  the  oil  failed,  (as  there  was  none  under  the  second  Temple,) 
clothed  him  with  the  high-priestly  garments."  And  says  Ikenius,  p. 
110,  "  The  high-priest  was  invested  with  his  office  by  the  great  Sanhe- 
drim.   Pontiles  autem  M.  a  Synedrio  ML  constituebatur." 

t  The  superiority  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  to  the  different  families  of 
the  Levites,  which  is  mentioned  by  Hooker,  p.  382,  will  not  prove  the 
contrary,  for  his  sons  were  only  priests  of  the  second  order.  Nor  can 
it  be  inferred,  as  he  imagines,  from  the  nomination  of  Amariah,  the 
priest,  to  be  chief  over  the  judges  for  the  cause  of  the  Lord  in  Jerusa- 
lem, 2  Chron.  xix.  11 ;  for  as  Bishop  Patrick,  in  his  exposition  of  the 
passage,  and  Carpzovius,  in  his  Antiquities,  p.  551,  observe,  he  was 
only  the  president  or  moderator  of  the  assembly  of  priests  who  were 
to  judge  of  sucli  matters.  Nor  can  it  be  deduced  from  what  is  asserted 
by  Josephus,  when  he  says,  "Priests  worship  God  continually,  and 
the  eldest  of  the  stock  are  governors  over  the  rest.  He  doth  sacrifice 
unto  God  before  others;  he  hath  care  of  the  laws,  judgeth  of  contro- 
versies, eorrecteth  offenders ;  and  whosoever  obeyeth  him  not  is  con- 
vict of  impiety  against  God."  In  the  Jirnt  place,  even  allowing  that 
he  speaks  of  the  high-priest,  and  not  of  the  eldest  priest  of  each  oft'  e 
families,  or  of  the  chief  priests  of  the  twenty-four  courses,  (and  the 
latter  seems  to  be  more  probable,)  the  authority  which  he  ascribes  to 
him  might  be  possessed  by  him  merely  as  president  of  the  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Sanhedrim.  And,  2dly,  he  does  not  represent  that  authority  as 
bestowed  upon  him  by  God,  but  says  merely  that  it  was  possk>sed  by 
the  priests  of  his  day. 

§  "  Plerumque  etiam,"  says  he,  p.  117,  (perhaps  in  the  first  part  of 
this  remark  he  is  not  altogether  accurate,)  "  licet  non  semper  in  Syne- 
drio praesidebat,  ceterum  tamen  huic  collegio  subjectus  erat,  et  ab  illo 
judicabatur."  Ravius  mentions  an  instance  of  this  in  the  case  of 
Simon  the  Just. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


101 


by  it;  and  consequently  the  bishop  would  be  entitled 
only  to  preside  in  an  assembly  of  his  presbyters,  and, 
like  the  high-priest  of  the  Jews,  would  be  subject  to 
their  authority. 

And  as  he  would  have  none  of  those  prerogatives 
which  you  claim  for  your  bishops,  so  there  was  a 
variety  of  privileges  which  belonged  to  the  high-priest 
that  could  not  be  enjoyed  by  such  a  minister  under 
the  Gospel  dispensation.  None  but  the  high-priest 
was  permitted  to  enter  into  the  presence  of  God,  once 
a  year,  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  intercede  for  the  for- 
giveness of  thesins  of  the  people.  But  you  will  scarcely, 
I  presume,  appropriate  such  a  privilege  to  any  bishop 
in  the  present  day.  He  alone  applied  by  Urim  and 
Thummim  for  supernatural  direction  in  cases  of  emer- 
gency. But  it  is  no  longer  the  prerogative  of  any 
minister,  whatever  may  be  his  rank,  to  obtain  such 
counsel  in  a  similar  way,  when  a  nation  or  a  church 
is  encompassed  by  difficulties.  He  was  distinguished 
from  the  priests  of  an  inferior  order  by  a  more  copious 
unction.  But  there  is  not  the  smallest  difference,  as 
far  as  I  know,  in  the  imposition  of  hands  on  the  head 
of  a  bishop,  from  what  takes  place  when  they  are  laid 
on  the  head  of  a  presbyter.  And  though,  according 
to  Archbishop  Potter,  "  the  proportion  of  tithes  allotted 
to  the  high-priest  was  equal  to  what  three  or  four 
thousand  Levites  lived  upon,"*  you  will  scarcely,  I 
suspect,  obtain  for  a  bishop,  either  in  your  own  Na- 
tional Church  or  in  any  other,  an  income  equal  to  that 
of  three  or  four  thousand  of  your  inferior  clergy.  And 
yet,  if  the  Christian  ministry  is  to  be  modelled  after 
the  ministry  of  the  ancient  Church,  you  are  bound  to 
maintain  the  resemblance  in  this,  as  well  as  other  im- 
portant particulars.  In  every  point  of  view,  there- 
fore, the  analogy  fails,  and  scarcely  affords  even  the 
shadow  of  an  argument  for  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

It  would  be  easy  to  prove,  that  as  there  is  a  striking 
dissimilarity  between  the  high-priest  of  the  Jews  and 
the  bishops  of  your  Church,  so  the  same  remark  holds 


*  Discourses  of  Church  Government,  p.  425. 


0 


102  LETTERS  ON 

true  respecting  their  priests  and  your  presbyters,  and 
their  Levites  and  your  deacons.  Four  thousand  of 
the  Levites  were  appointed  as  porters  to  guard  the 
gates  and  passages  into  the  Temple,  after  they  ceased 
to  be  required  to  carry  the  tabernacle  and  its  utensils ; 
1  Chron.  ix.  17,  chap,  xxiii.  4,  5.  Are  any  of  your 
deacons  employed  in  this  way  about  your  churches  or 
cathedrals?  And  four  thousand  were  appointed  to 
be  singers,  and  six  thousand  to  be  officers  and  judges. 
Are  occupations  like  these  assigned  to  any  part  of  that 
order  of  your  ministers?  Besides,  as  Junius  remarks, 
"  as  the  wants  of  the  poor  and  the  afflicted  were  pro- 
vided for  in  a  different  way  by  the  law  of  God  than 
by  the  office  of  the  Levites,  it  is  impossible  that  dea- 
cons" (whose  office  was  instituted  to  attend  to  the 
temporal  wants  of  the  poor,  and  not,  as  among  Epis- 
copalians, to  preach  and  baptize,)  "  can  answer  to  the 
Levites  of  the  former  dispensation.  And  as  ecclesias- 
tical government  was  committed  by  the  law  to  an 
assembly  of  priests,  and  not  merely  to  one  high- 
priest,"*  it  is  obvious  that  your  presbyters  do  not 
correspond  to  their  priests. 

I  am,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  argument  of  Dr.  Brett  and  Bishop  Gleig  for  dioeesan  Fpisropncy  from 
the  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  during  our  Lord's  ministry,  inconclu- 
sive.— The  Old  Testament  Church  had  not  then  ceased  !o  exist,  nor  was 
the  JNevv  Testament  Church  eslahlished. — Their  account  of  the  ministry 
which  was  instituted  at  that  time  not  supported  by  Scripture,  contrary  to 
the  representations  of  it  given  by  the  fathers,  and  so  far  as  it  furnishes  a 
pattern  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  would  warrant  the  appointment  of  a  single 
bishopover  the  Universal  Church. — Archbishop  Poller's  hypothesis  equal- 
ly unsatisfactory,  and  would  lead  lo  a  similar  conclusion. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  next  argument  in  support  of 
your  ecclesiastical  polity  is  derived  from  the  alleged 

*  "  Diaconiae  usus  non  fuit  in  Veteri  Testainento  quia  rebus  pau- 
perum  et  alflictorum  alia  via  lex  Dei  prospexerat,"  &.C.  Consult  him  de 
Cler.,cap.  14,  note  13  and  11. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


103 


gradation  of  orders  which  existed  in  the  Church  dur- 
ing the  ministry  of  the  Saviour.  Your  principal  writers 
state  it  variously,  each  of  them  distrusting  it  in  the 
particular  form  in  which  it  had  been  proposed  by 
others.  And  they  had  good  reason  to  do  so,  for  in 
the  three  different  forms  in  which  it  has  been  presented 
successively,  I  shall  endeavour  to  show  that  it  is 
equally  inconclusive. 

The  first  of  them  which  I  shall  notice  is  that  by  Dr. 
Brett,  who  observes,  that  "  there  were  three  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  Christian  Church  while  Christ  was  on 
earth  ;  that  is,  himself,  the  head  and  chief  minister  or 
bishop;  the  twelve  Apostles,  who  were  next  unto  him, 
answering  to  the  priests  or  second  order;  and  then 
the  seventy  disciples,  as  an  order  below  the  Apostles, 
and  answering  to  the  deacons."*  And  says  the  late 
Bishop  Gleig,  in  an  article  which  he  wrote  in  the  Anti- 
Jacobin  Review,  "  During  the  time  of  our  Saviour's 
sojourning  upon  earth,  he  was  himself  the  supreme 
governor  of  his  little  flock,  and  had  under  him  two 
distinct  orders  of  ministers,  the  twelve  and  the  seventy. 
This  was  exactly  according  to  the  model  of  the  Jew- 
ish Church,  and  could  not  fail  to  be  considered  by  the 
Apostles  as  the  model  after  which  they  were  to  frame 
the  Church  of  Christ."t  Now  upon  this  I  would 
remark, 

1.  That  none  of  the  characters  which  are  assigned 
by  these  writers  to  our  Lord,  his  apostles  and  disciples, 
are  ascribed  to  them  in  Scripture. 

It  is  easy,  I  am  sensible,  for  an  ingenious  mind  to 
trace  a  resemblance  between  the  Redeemer,  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  seventy  disciples,  and  the  hierarchy  under 
the  Old,  and  diocesan  Episcopacy  under  the  New  Dis- 
pensation ;  but  none  of  these  characters  are  ever  attri- 
buted to  them,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  intimation 
that  the  alleged  gradation  which  existed  at  that  time 
in  the  ministry  of  the  Church  was  intended  to  be  the 
model  of  the  Christian  ministry.  It  is  a  remarkable 
fact  which  overturns  this  hypothesis,  that  our  Lord  is 

*  Divine  Right  of  Episcopacy,  p.  17,  sect.  8. 
t  Anti-Jacobin  Review,  vol.  ix.  p.  110. 


104 


LETTERS  ON 


never  represented  as  a  bishop  while  he  sojourned  upon 
earth,  and  that  the  only  instance  in  which  he  was 
distinguished  by  that  name,  (and  it  is  applied  to  him 
figuratively,)  was  after  his  ascension  to  heaven* 
Nor  did  he  perform  any  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  a 
bishop.  He  preached  the  word;  but  this  is  done  by 
presbyters,  and  very  seldom  by  bishops,  who,  if,  ac- 
cording to  this  argument,  they  are  appointed  to  resem- 
ble him  in  regard  to  their  power,  bear  little  resem- 
blance of  him  in  the  diligent  performance  of  this 
important  duty.  He  not  only  did  not  baptize,  (John 
iv.  3,)  but  did  not  confirm  those  Avho  were  baptized 
by  his  disciples,  for  the  only  individuals  on  whom  he 
laid  his  hands  and  blessed  them,  except  such  as  were 
the  objects  of  his  miraculous  power,  were  little  chil- 
dren, whom  he  took  up  into  his  arms.  He  never  exer- 
cised any  ecclesiastical  discipline ;  and  though  he 
instituted  ordinances,  and  gave  their  commission  to 
the  Apostles,  and  afterwards  to  the  seventy,  yet  it  was 
not  as  a  bishop,  but  as  the  head  of  his  Church — send- 
ing them  forth  as  his  Father  sent  himself,  or  as  it  is 
elsewhere  expressed,  (Heb.  iv.)  as  the  Son  of  God 
who  was  "  over  his  house,"  and  distitict  from  it, 
and  who  had  a  right  to  appoint  its  ministers  and  insti- 
tutions. And  as  such  was  the  character  in  which  he 
sent  forth  his  Apostles  while  he  was  with  them  on 
earth,  and  in  which  he  renewed  their  commission  after 
he  rose  from  the  dead,  so  it  was  in  it  also,  and  not  as 
a  diocesan  bishop,  that  he  gave  his  commission  to 
Paul,  (Acts  ix.,  Gal.  i.  1,)  to  the  office  of  an  Apostle 
after  he  ascended  to  heaven.  Nor  are  the  Apostles 
represented  as  corresponding  to  priests  during  the  life 
of  their  Master,  or  performing  any  of  the  peculiar 
duties  of  presbyters,  for  they  neither  administered  the 
Eucharist,  nor  took  part  with  him  in  any  act  of  eccle- 
siastical discipline.  And  the  seventy  are  never  com- 
pared to  deacons;  and  though  they  preached  the  word, 
it  was  no  part  of  their  duty  to  take  charge  of  the  poor, 
which  was  the  principal,  if  not  the  only  end  for  which 
that  office  was  instituted  in  the  primitive  Church ; 


*  1  Peter  ii.  25. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


105 


Acts  vi.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  argument 
founded  on  this  alleged  imaginary  resemblance  be- 
tween our  Lord  the  King  and  Head  of  his  Church, 
and  a  diocesan  bishop,  which  is  revolting  to  the  feel- 
ings of  a  pious  mind,  and  between  the  Apostles  and 
presbyters,  and  the  seventy  disciples  and  deacons,  is 
utterly  worthless;  for  no  such  resemblance  is  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  nor  are  such  characters  ascribed 
to  them,  nor  are  they  represented  as  intended  to  fur- 
nish a  model  of  the  future  ministry  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament Church. 

The  futility  of  this  reasoning  will  further  appear, 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  Old  Testament  Church 
had  not  then  ceased  to  exist,  nor  was  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church  established  till  after  the  resurrection  of 
the  Redeemer. 

The  truth  of  this  observation  is  so  candidly  acknow- 
ledged and  so  clearly  demonstrated  by  a  zealous  Epis- 
copalian of  a  former  age,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
trouble  you  with  any  additional  proof  of  it.  "  But 
how  can  this  prove  a  solid  advantage  to  him,"  says 
Bishop  Sage  of  Principal  Rule,  "  so  long  as  it  is  im- 
possible for  him  to  make  it  appear  so  much  as  prob- 
able, that  S.  Cyprian  believed  the  LXX  as  making  a 
distinct  college  from  that  of  the  XII,  to  have  had  any 
standing  office  in  the  Christian  Church,  in  which 
they  were  to  have  a  constarit  line  of  successors?  No 
intimation,  no  not  the  slenderist  insinuation  of  such 
a  belief  in  any  of  his  writings.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  one  of  his  abilities  and  diligence 
in  searching  the  evangelical  records  could  hardly  have 
missed  to  observe  that  ivhich  is  so  obviously  observ- 
able in  them,  I  mean  that  the  Christian  Church  teas 
not,  could  not  be  founded  till  our  Lord  was  risen, 
seeing  it  was  to  be  founded  on  his  Resurrection.  Our 
martyr  (as  appears  from  his  reasonings  on  divers 
occasions,)  seems  very  well  to  have  known,  and  very 
distinctly  to  have  observed,  that  the  Jlpostles  them- 
selves got  not  their  commission  to  be  governors  of 
the  Christian  Church  till  after  the  Resurrection. 
And  no  wonder,  for  this  their  commission  is  most  ob- 


106 


LETTERS  OX 


servably  recorded,  John  xx.  21,22,23, — no  such  thing 
any  where  recorded  concerning  the  LXX.  Nothing 
more  certain  than  that  commission,  which  is  recorded 
Luke  x.  did  constitute  them  only  temporary  mis- 
sioned, and  that  for  an  errand  which  could  not  possi- 
bly be  more  than  temporary.  That  commission  con- 
tains in  its  own  bosom  clear  evidences  that  it  did  not 
install  them  in  any  standing  office  at  all,  much  less 
in  any  standing  office  in  the  Christian  Church, 
which  was  not  yet  in  being  when  they  got  it.  Could 
the  commission  which  is  recorded  Luke  x.  any  more 
constitute  the  LXX  standing  officers  of  the  Christian 
Church,  than  the  like  commission,  recorded  Matt.  x. 
could  constitute  the  XII  such  standing  officers?  But 
it  is  manifest  that  the  commission  recorded  Matt.  x. 
did  not  constitute  the  XII  governors  of  the  Christian 
Church,  otherwise  what  need  of  a  new  commission 
to  that  purpose  after  the  Resurrection  ?  Presumable 
therefore  it  is  that  S.  Cyprian  did  not  at  all  believe 
that  the  LXX  had  any  successors,  office-bearers  in 
the  Christian  Church,  seeing  it  is  so  observable  that 
they  themselves  received  no  commission  to  be  such 
office-beraers."*  But  if  such  be  the  case,  it  must  be 
absurd  in  the  extreme  to  talk  of  the  Apostles  as  suc- 
ceeding our  Lord,  and  of  the  presbyters  as  succeeding 
the  Apostles,  and  of  the  deacons  as  succeeding  the 
seventy  disciples  in  the  administration  of  a  Church 
which  was  not  then  in  existence;  and  the  absurdity 
must  be  increased,  if  the  seventy  had  only  a  tempo- 
rary commission  even  during  the  ministry  of  the  Re- 
deemer. 

In  the  third  place,  the  illustrations  of  this  resem- 
blance which  are  given  by  the  fathers,  whose  authori- 
ty is  so  highly  respected  by  Episcopalians  on  other 
subjects,  and  especially  on  the  constitution  of  the 
Christian  Church,  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  these  writers, 

It  is  remarked  by  Junius,  that  the  fathers  never  re- 
present the  Christian  ministry  as  modelled  after  that 

*  Vindication  of  the  Principles  of  the  Cyprianic  Age,  p.  235. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


107 


of  the  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Saviour,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  divine  command,  but  merely  because  the 
Church,  of  its  own  accord,  had  resolved  to  do  so. 
"How  then,"  says  he,  "you  will  ask,  did  they  affirm 
that  the  latter  succeeded  the  former?  By  human 
appointment,  and  not  by  any  divine  institution, — by 
analogy  and  imitation,  and  not  from  any  particular 
obligation  which  was  binding  on  the  Church."*  And 
as  such  is  the  way  in  which  they  represent  the  minis- 
try in  the  Christian  Church  as  succeeding  the  ministry 
in  the  days  of  our  Lord,  so  it  deserves  to  be  noticed 
particularly,  that  in  illustrating  the  succession  they 
leave  him  entirely  out  of  the  parallel,  and  never  inti- 
mate that  he  corresponded  to  the  bishops,  the  Apos- 
tles to  the  priests  or  presbyters,  and  the  seventy  to  the 
deacons,  but  assign  to  the  Apostles  during  the  life  of 
Christ  the  place  of  bishops,  and  to  the  seventy  that  of 
presbyters.  Such,  as  is  acknowledged  by  Downam, 
was  the  opinion  of  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  and 
Augustine ;  for,  says  he,  "  with  this  distinction  of 
Anacletus  those  unsuspected  fathers  agree,  who  hold 
that  these  two  degrees  of  ministers  were  ordained  by 
Christ,  when  he  appointed  twelve  Apostles,  whose 
successors  are  the  bishops,  and  the  threescore  and 
twelve  disciples,  whom  the  presbyters  succeed. "t 
And  again  he  observes,  that  "it  is  the  judgment  of 
many  of  the  fathers,  who  holde  that  our  Saviour 
Christ,  in  ordayning  his  twelve  Apostles,  and  his  seav- 
enty-two  disciples,  both  which  sorts  he  sent  to  preach 
the  Gospell,  instituted  the  two  degrees  of  the  ministe- 
rie,  bishops  answering  to  the  high-priest,  and  presby- 
ters answerable  to  the  priests."!  And  such  also  was 
the  opinion  of  Chrysostom,§  Bede,||  and  many  others. 

*  Quomodo  ergo  jnquies  dixerunt  hos  illis  succcdcre,  &c.  de  Cleric, 
cap.  14,  not.  15. 

t  Defence  of  his  Sermon,  booke  iii.  p.  32. 

t  Booke  iv.  p.  48.  His  assertion,  indeed,  is  opposed  to  that  of  Ju- 
nius ;  but  it  will  be  found,  upon  turning  to  the  fathers  referred  to,  that 
the  latter  is  in  the  right. 

§  See  his  Homily  de  Prodit.  Judae. 

II  Consult  him  upon  Luke,  lib.  iii.  cap.  42. 

I  am  aware  that  a  different  view  has  been  given  by  a  few  of  the 


10S 


LETTERS  ON 


If  we  attach  any  weight,  then,  to  the  opinion  of  the 
fathers,  as  stated  even  by  Episcopalians,  it  is  plain 
that  the  Redeemer  cannot  be  considered  as  occupying 
the  place  merely  of  a  diocesan  bishop. 

And  I  would  observe,  in  the  last  place,  that  if  he 
were  only  a  bishop,  so  far  as  it  furnished  an  argu- 
ment for  an  order  superior  to  priests  and  deacons  in 
the  Christian  ministry,  it  would  prove  by  far  too 
much.  It  would  demonstrate,  indeed,  that  there  ought 
to  be  such  an  order,  but  it  would  be  an  order  which 
could  include  only  a  single  individual,  and  on  that 
individual  would  devolve  not  only  the  duties  of  ordi- 
nation and  confirmation,  but  of  jurisdiction  and  dis- 
cipline throughout  the  universal  Church.  But  as  an 
argument  which  leads  to  such  obvious  absurdities 
contains  within  itself  its  own  refutation,  it  must  be 
upon  very  different  grounds  that  you  will  maintain 
the  cause  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  and  persuade  us  to 
embrace  your  favourite  doctrine,  that  where  there  is 
no  bishop  there  can  be  no  Church. 

It  is  alleged,  however,  by  Archbishop  Potter,  that 
this  argument  may  be  proposed  in  a  different  way, 

fathers  of  the  persons  represented  by  the  seventy,  who  make  them 
correspond  to  the  Chorepiscopi,  of  whom  it  is  said  by  Balsamon,  upon 
the  14th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Neocesarea,  that  "they  had  privi- 
leges superior  to  those  of  presbyters,  t/.«/jv*  jc*/  taut*  vafatafjkM  nrigx 
T5«  ifgic;  f^svTfr,"  and  by  Beveridge,  in  his  notes  on  the  13th  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Ancyra,  Bingham  in  his  Antiquities,  vol.  i.  p.  173, 
and  Hammond  contra  Blondel,  Dissert,  iii.  cap.  8.  that  they  were  of 
the  Episcopal  order,  but  ordained  only  by  a  single  bishop,  and  subject 
to  the  bishop  of  the  city  in  whose  diocese  they  resided.  Such  is  the 
account  of  the  seventy,  which  is  delivered  by  the  Council  of  Neoces- 
area,  in  the  canon  which  I  have  now  quoted;  for  they  tell  us  that 
"the  Chorepiscopi,"  or  country  bishops,  "were  a  type,''  or  exhibited 
a  resemblance  of  the  seventy,  "  li  Si  X&^sTis-xoTrsi  it?i  fxii  ut  ti/tsv  tccy 
e2J^juni'ATi."  And  such  was  the  opinion  of  Balsamon,  Zonaras,  Aris- 
tenus,  and  Simeon  Logothetes,  as  appears  from  their  annotations  upon 
that  canon.  The  last  of  these  interpretations,  indeed,  contradicts  the 
first,  and  shows  how  little  importance  ought  to  be  attached  to  the 
judgment  of  the  fathers,  as  to  matters  relating  to  the  constitution  of 
the  Church.  According  to  this  view  of  the  Chorepiscopi,  presbyters 
icere  not  represented  amon<?  the  office-bearers  of  the  Church  during 
our  Lord's  ministry.  I  shall  afterwards  inquire  into  the  status  of  the 
Chorepiscopi. 

Even  these  fathers,  I  may  add,  never  represent  the  Redeemer  as 
sustaining  the  character  of  a  bishop. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


109 


and  that  in  that  way  it  is  unanswerable.  Onr  Lord, 
says  he,  was  intrusted  by  his  Father  with  the  govern- 
ment of  his  Church,  "and  had  under  him  two  sorts 
of  ministers;  1.  Apostles;  and,  2.  Disciples."*  And 
after  illustrating,  as  he  imagines,  in  a  variety  of  par- 
ticulars, the  inferiority  of  the  latter  to  the  former,t 
without  attempting  to  point  out  to  what  order  the 
disciples  belonged,  or  what  order  they  were  to  repre- 
sent in  the  future  Church,  he  draws  from  it  merely 
the  general  conclusion,  that  there  ought  to  be  a  simi- 
lar gradation  in  the  Christian  ministry.  But  if  it 
prove  that  there  ought  to  be  a  gradation,  it  proves,  I 
apprehend,  that  there  ought  to  be  a  corresponding 
gradation  to  that  which  existed  during  our  Lord's 
ministry,  and  if  this  suggestion  were  to  be  adopted, 
it  would  lead  inevitably  to  a  constitution  of  the  Church 
still  more  monstrous  and  absurd  than  that  which  I 
have  just  noticed.  There  would  be  a  universal  bishop, 
like  our  Lord  himself,  without  cardinals,  or  patriarchs, 
or  metropolitans,  or  prelates,  or  any  other  dignita- 
ries,— a  minister  corresponding  to  John  the  Baptist, 
belonging  to  an  order  which  has  never  yet  been 
defined,  and  two  other  orders  corresponding  to  the 
Apostles  and  the  seventy  disciple?.  And  if  you  con- 
sider what  he  says  of  the  two  latter  orders  during  the 
ministry  of  the  Redeemer,  it  will  confirm  my  observa- 
tion. The  Apostles,  he  confesses,  (and  his  statement 
is  correct,)  before  the  night  on  which  their  Master 
was  betrayed,  had  only  the  powers  of  deacons,  and 
yet  were  of  an  order  superior  to  that  of  the  seven- 
ty!!! "  The  plenitude  of  the  apostolick  powers," 
says  he,  "  was  not  conferred  on  the  Apostles  at  their 
first  ordination,  but  given  them  at  three  different 
times. 

"First,  after  a  whole  night  spent  in  solemn  prayer, 
our  Lord  chose  them  to  be  with  him  as  his  constant 
attendants  and  ministers,  and  to  preach  the  Gospel. 
They  had  also  power  to  baptize,  though  that  be  not 
expressed  in  their  commission;  which  is  evident  from 

*  Discourse  of  Church  Government,  p.  44. 
t  Ibid.  p.  1G-50. 


110 


LETTERS  OX 


St.  John's  Gospel,  where  it  is  said  Jesus  himself  bap- 
tized not,  but  his  disciples.  All  which  offices  have 
been  generally  executed  in  the  Christian  Church  since 
our  Lord's  ascension  by  the  deacons,  or  third  order 
of  ministers."* 

And  though  he  immediately  adds,  that  "  after  this 
they  received  authority  to  commemorate  our  Lord's 
sacrifice  on  the  cross,  when  he  commanded  them  at 
his  last  supper  to  do  as  he  had  done,  that  is,  to  bless 
the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  in  remembrance  of 
him,  (Luke  xxii.  19,)  which  raised  them  to  be  pres- 
byters," his  inference  will  not  follow.  The  Redeemer 
in  that  passage  enjoined  them  not  to  bless  the  bread 
in  remembrance  of  him,  but  to  take  it  and  eat  it,  and 
not  to  bless  the  cup.  but  to  drink  it:  and  they  were 
to  do  this  not  as  presbyters,  but  as  believers:  for  the 
same  thing  is  enjoined  upon  all  believers,  in  the  ac- 
count which  is  given  by  the  Apostle  Paul  of  the  insti- 
tution of  that  ordinance,  (1  Cor.  xi.  23-2S:)  and  not 
only  ministers,  but  the  members  of  the  Church  are 
required  to  "examine  themselves  before  they  eat  of 
that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup."  The  powers  of 
the  Apostles,  then,  were  not  enlarged  on  the  occasion 
referred  to,  and  if  they  had  those  only  of  deacons 
from  their  first  commission,  they  remained  only  dea- 
cons till  before  the  ascension  of  their  Master;  and 
yet  they  were  superior  to  the  seventy,  who  must 
have  represented  an  order  of  Christian  ministers  that 
has  never  yet  existed  in  any  Church.  The  beau  ideal, 
then,  of  the  orders  of  the  ministry  in  the  Christian 
Church,  according  to  the  model  presented  by  the 
Church  in  the  days  of  our  Lord,  must  be  a  universal 
bishop,  a  second  minister  resembling  the  Baptist,  a 
third  order  corresponding  to  deacons  without  a  single 
presbyter,  and  a  fourth,  inferior  to  the  deacons,  and 
corresponding  to  the  seventy,  and  the  powers  and 
end  of  which  no  one  has  ever  yet  attempted  to  ex- 
plain.   I  am,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 


*  Page  61. 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACY. 


Ill 


LETTER  IX. 

The  same  argument,  as  stated  by  Bishop  Bilson,  Mr.  Jones,  and  Bishop 
Skinner,  invalid. — Upon  their  hypothesis  there  would  be  no  deacons  in 
the  Church. — Nohigher  powers  were  possessed  at  that  time  by  the  Apos- 
tles than  by  the  Seventy;  and  the  different  circumstances  mentioned  by 
Archbishop  Potter,  to  prove  the  superiority  of  the  lormer,  do  not  establish 
it. — The  olfice  of  the  Seventy  seems  to  have  terminated  with  their  mis 
sion,  or,  at  farthest,  at  the  death  of  the  Saviour,  and  consequently  they 
could  not  be  an  order  in  the  Christian  Church. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  argument  for  Episcopacy  which 
I  have  just  been  considering,  as  stated  by  the  writers 
to  whom  I  have  already  referred,  is  certainly  a  failure. 
But  there  is  still  a  different  form  in  which  it  has  been 
proposed  by  others,  who  admit  that  our  Lord  did  not 
belong  to  any  order,  but  contend  that  he  bestowed  on 
the  Apostles  the  powers  of  bishops,  and  on  the  disci- 
ples those  of  presbyters,  and  that  similar  orders  should 
exist  in  the  Church  in  the  present  day.  Such  was 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jones,  who  says,  in  his  essay  on 
the  Church,  "our  Saviour  at  first  ordained  his  twelve 
Apostles,  according  to  the  number  of  the  tribes  of  the 
Church  of  Israel.  Afterwards  he  ordained  other 
seventy,  according  to  the  number  of  the  elders  whom 
Moses  appointed  as  his  assistants.  When  the  Church 
in  Jerusalem  was  multiplied,  seven  deacons  were  or- 
dained by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Apostles — 
and  by  these  the  first  Christian  Church  in  Jerusalem 
was  governed  and  administered."*  Such  also  was 
the  opinion  of  Bishop  Bilson;  for  "  albeit  the  Son  of 
God,"  says  he,  "  assembled  no  Churches  whiles  he 
lived  on  earth — yet  lest  the  house  of  God  should  be 
unfinished,  and  his  harvest  ungathered,  in  his  owne 
person  while  hee  walked  heere,  he  called  and  autho- 
rized from  and  above  the  rest  certaine  workmen  and 
stewards  to  take  the  chiefe  charge,  care  and  oversight, 
after  his  departure,  of  God's  building  and  husbandrie, 
for  which  cause  he  made,  when  as  yet  hee  was  con- 
versant with  men,  a  plain  distinction  betwixt  his  dis- 


*  Page  28-29. 


112 


LETTERS  ON 


ciples,  choosing  twelve  of  them  to  be  his  Apostles,  and 
appointing  other  seventy  to  goe  before  him  into  every 
citie  and  every  place  whither  he  should  come,  and  to 
preach  the  kingdom  of  God ;  giving  those  twelve  larger 
commission,  perfecter  instruction,  higher  authoritie, 
and  greater  gifts  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  then  the  rest  of 
his  disciples,  which  he  made  labourers  also  in  his  har- 
vest, and  messengers  of  his  kingdome."*  And  such, 
too,  was  the  opinion  of  Bishop  Skinner.t  But  upon 
this  likewise  I  would  remark, 

1.  That  if  we  were  to  adopt  this  hypothesis,  and 
have  only  those  orders  which  were  in  the  days  of  the 
Redeemer,  we  would  have  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
the  Church,  but  there  could  not  be  deacons. 

2.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostles  were  pos- 
sessed of  those  higher  powers  as  compared  to  the 
seventy,  while  the  commission  of  the  latter  continued, 
by  which  bishops  are  at  present  distinguished  from 
presbyters. 

It  is  one  of  the  peculiar  prerogatives  of  bishops  to 
ordain  presbyters  and  all  other  inferior  ministers.  But 
this  pre-eminence,  we  know  was  not  enjoyed  by  the 
Apostles  over  the  seventy  disciples,  for  it  was  from 
the  Lord  himself,  and  not  from  the  Apostles,  that  the 
disciples  received  their  commission.  "  If  by  imparity," 
says  Stillingfleet,  "  be  meant  that  the  twelve  Apostles 
had  a  superiority  of  power  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
seventy  disciples,  there  is  not  the  least  evidence  or 
foundation  in  reason  or  Scripture  for  it.  For  the 
seventy  did  not  derive  their  power  from  the  Apostles, 
but  immediately  from  Christ,  "f  And  says  Dr.  Whitby, 
"  Whereas  some  compare  the  bishops  to  the  Apostles, 
the  seventy  to  the  presbyters  of  the  Church,  and  thence 
conclude  that  divers  orders  in  the  ministry  were  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  himself,  it  must  be  granted  that  some 
of  the  ancients  did  believe  these  two  to  be  divers  or- 
ders, and  that  those  of  the  seventy  were  inferior  to  the 
order  of  the  Apostles,  and  sometimes  they  make  the 

*  Perpetual  Government  of  the  Church,  p.  43,  43. 

t  Primitive  Truth  and  Order  Vindicated,  p.  121,  122. 

t  Irenieum,  p.  217,  218. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


113 


comparison  here  mentioned;  but  then  it  must  be  also 
granted  that  this  comparison  will  not  strictly  hold;  for 
the  seventy  received  not  their  commission  as  presby- 
ters do  from  bishops,  but  immediately  from  the  Lord 
Christ,  as  well  as  the  Jipostles,  and  in  their  first 
mission  were  plainly  sent  the  same  errand,  and  ivith 
the  same  power."*  It  is  another  of  the  prerogatives 
of  bishops  that  they  alone  have  the  power  of  confir- 
mation. But  no  instance  can  be  produced  in  which 
it  was  exercised  by  the  Apostles  during  the  life  of 
their  Master,  and  we  shall  by  and  by  inquire  whether 
they  exercised  it  afterwards.  And  it  is  a  third  prero- 
gative of  these  dignitaries,  that  they  alone  have  the 
chief,  if  not  the  only,  power  of  jurisdiction  and  govern- 
ment. But,  as  was  formerly  noticed,  the  Apostles 
never  appear  to  have  exercised  this  power  during  the 
ministry  of  the  Saviour.  Nay,  it  is  acknowledged  by 
Saravia,  that  "  though  he  promised  them  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing,  yet  he  did  not  bestow  it  upon  them  before  his 
death,  tox  it  belonged  to  the  Aaron ic  priesthood,  which 
was  not  to  cease  till  he  had  put  an  end  to  the  Leviti- 
cal  sacrifices,  and  transferred  to  himself  the  priesthood 
and  every  thing  which  was  connected  with  it.  And 
hence,"  he  observes,  "  while  the  Old  Testament 
Church  continued  he  could  not  found  the  New."t 
But  if  none  of  the  peculiar  powers  of  bishops  was  pos- 
sessed by  the  twelve  any  more  than  the  seventy,  you 
can  have  no  right  to  appeal  to  the  superiority  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  seventy  disciples,  for  the  superiority  of 
your  bishops  to  the  inferior  clergy. 

In  the  third  place,  the  office  of  the  seventy  seems  to 
have  terminated  at  farthest  at  the  death  of  the  Saviour, 
and  consequently  they  could  not  possibly  be  an  order 
in  the  Christian  Church. 

That  the  first  commission,  even  of  the  Apostles 

*  Consult  him  upon  Luke  x.  1. 

t  Praeterea  claves  regni  coelorum  potestatemque  ligandi  se  datu- 
rum  promisit  quam  ante  mortem  sttam  non  dedit,  Sfc.  Dcfcnsio,  cap. 
3,  sect.  3.  Sec,  too,  Potter,  ch.  iii.  p.  63,  who  admits  that  it  was 
"  then  only  the  Apostles  received  the  keys  which  were  first  promised 
to  Peter  as  the  foreman  of  the  Apostolick  College." 

8 


114 


LETTERS  Otf 


themselves,  expired  at  least  with  the  life  of  their  Mas- 
ter, appears  to  be  beyond  a  doubt;  for,  had  not  this 
been  the  case,  he  would  not  have  delivered  to  them 
a  new  and  different  commission  after  he  had  risen 
from  the  dead.  And  that  the  same  was  the  case  also 
with  the  seventy  disciples  is  equally  clear,  for  it  is 
never  insinuated  that  the  commission  of  the  latter 
was  to  be  of  longer  duration  than  that  of  the  former, 
and  after  they  had  returned  from  their  mission  through 
the  cities  of  Israel,  we  hear  of  them  no  more.  While 
the  commission  of  the  Apostles,  however, was  renewed 
and  enlarged  after  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  no 
second  commission  was  delivered  to  the  seventy;  nor 
is  there  the  most  distant  allusion  to  them,  either  in 
the  history  of  the  Acts,  or  in  the  Apostolical  Epistles. 
Nay,  it  is  stated  by  Epiphanius,  that  the  first  seven 
deacons  were  formerly  of  the  seventy,  and  it  is  as- 
serted by  Balsamon.  that  they  had  not  the  power  of 
remitting  sins;  for  Philip  the  deacon,  who  was  pro- 
moted to  be  an  evangelist, because,  "having  used  that 
office  well,  (1  Tim.  iii.  13,)  lie  procured  for  himself  a 
good  degree,"  though  he  preached  at  Samaria,  (Acts 
viii.)  yet  could  not  lay  his  hands  on  the  believers.* 

*  Examine  his  Annotations  on  the  14th  Canon  of  the  Council  of 
Neocesarea,  and  Epiphanius,  sub  finem,  torn,  prioris,  lib.  i.  p.  .50. 

It  is  maintained,  indeed,  by  Blondel,  (Apol.  pro  Senlcntia  Hiero- 
nymi,  p.  118,)  that  Epiphanius  must  be  mistaken,  and  that  the  seventy 
must  have  retained  their  ministry  after  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour; 
but  his  arguments  are  unsatisfactory.  In  the  first  place,  he  says 
they  are  denominated  Apostles  by  a  number  of  the  fathers,  to  whom 
he  refers,  p.  113,  which  would  not,  he  imagines,  have  been  the  case, 
if  their  oftice  had  become  extinct  before  the  death  of  Christ.  Would 
not  the  twelve,  however,  have  been  called  Apostles,  because  they 
were  sent  forth  to  preach  the  Gospel,  though  they  had  never  received 
their  second  commission  ;  and  why  might  not  the  same  name  be 
applied  to  the  seventy,  who  were  sent  forth,  like  the  others,  two  and 
two,  especially  as  it  is  acknowledged  by  Episcopalians  that  it  is 
given  to  deacons,  who  afterwards  became  Evangelists?  2dly,  He 
argues  from  the  reason  for  which  they  were  appointed  at  first,  name- 
ly, that  "  the  harvest  was  plenteous,  but  the  labourers  few,"  that  as 
long  as  there  was  need  for  them  their  office  must  have  continued. 
"  Cum  messis  inter  Judaeos  copia,"  &.c.  But  as  no  one  would  have 
believed  that  the  office  of  the  Apostles  remained  in  the  Church, 
merely  because  the  harvest  was  plenteous,  and  the  labourers  were 
few,  if  no  evidence  could  have  been  produced  of  their  second  com- 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


115 


But  if  such  was  the  fact,  it  is  plain  that  they  must 
only  have  had  a  temporary  ministry,  and  could  not 
be  intended  to  be  a  standing  order  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

It  is  affirmed,  accordingly,  by  Bishop  Sage,  in  a  pre- 
ceding extract,  that  it  not  only  became  extinct  before 
the  appointment  of  the  deacons,  but  as  soon  as  they 
had  finished  their  journey  through  the  cities  of  Israel. 
And  the  same  also  were  the  sentiments  of  Stillingfleet 
and  Whitby,  respecting  the  first  commission  of  the 
Apostles,  as  well  as  that  of  the  seventy  disciples.  "  We 
observe,"  says  the  former,  respecting  the  first  commis- 
sion of  the  Apostles,  "that  imployment  Christ  sent  them 
upon  now  was  only  a  temporary  imployment,  confined 
as  to  work  and  place,  and  not  the  full  apostolicall  work. 
The  want  of  considering  and  understanding  this  hath 
been  the  ground  of  very  many  mistakes  among  men, 
when  they  argue  from  the  occasional  precepts  here 
given  the  Apostles,  as  from  a  standing  perpetual  rule 
for  a  gospel  ministry.  Whereas  our  Saviour  onely 
suited  these  instructions  to  the  present  case,  and  the 
nature  and  condition  of  the  Apostles'  present  imploy- 
ment, which  was  not  to  preach  the  Gospel  up  and 
down  themselves,  but  to  be  as  so  many  John  Baptists, 
to  call  people  to  the  hearing  of  Christ  himself;  and 
therefore,  the  doctrine  they  were  to  preach  was  the 

mission,  so  it  is  impossible  to  believe,  merely  for  that  reason,  that 
the  office  of  the  seventy  was  to  continue,  when  no  evidence  can  be 
brought  forward  of  the  renewal  of  their  commission.  And  he  con- 
tends for  it  in  the  third  place,  because  it  is  said  by  Paul  that  our 
Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  all  the  Apos- 
tles, (1  Cor.  xv.  7  ;)  and  as  his  appearance  to  the  twelve  is  previously 
mentioned,  he  thinks  "  that  the  Apostles  of  whom  he  speaks  must  be 
some  other  ministers,  and  can  have  been  only  the  seventy.  Haec 
vero  in  solos  septuaginta  viros  quadrant,"  &c.  But  this  is  equally 
inconclusive,  for  it  may  be  a  subsequent  appearance  which  is  referred 
to  in  that  passage,  that,  for  instance,  which  took  place  at  the  ascen- 
sion of  the  Redeemer,  when  all  the  Apostles  were  present. 

It  is  remarked  by  Brokesby,  in  his  History  of  the  Government  of 
the  Primitive  Church,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Dickinson  of  America,  p.  14, 
of  his  remarks  on  a  book  entitled,  A  Modest  Proof  of  the  Order,  &c. 
that  the  seventy  were  sent  only  "  as  forerunners  before  the  face  of 
Christ,  to  the  places  whither  he  would  come  to  prepare  the  people  to 
entertain  him" 


116 


LETTERS  ON 


same  with  his,  The  kingdome  of  heaven  is  at  hand. 
This  mission,  then,  being  occasional,  limited,  and  tem- 
porary, can  yield  no  foundation  for  any  thing  per- 
petual to  be  built  upon  it."  And  again,  he  remarks 
upon  the  Apostles  and  seventy,  "  It  seems  most  proba- 
ble that  both  their  missions  were  only  temporary  ; 
and  after  this  the  seventy  remained  in  the  character 
of  private  disciples,  till  they  were  sent  abroad  by  a 
new  commission  after  the  resurrection,  (but  in  a  dif- 
ferent character,)  for  preaching  the  Gospel  and  plant- 
ing churches.  Nothing  can  be  inferred,  then,  for  any 
necessary  standing  rule  for  Church  government,  from 
any  comparison  between  the  Apostles  and  the  LXX 
during  the  life  of  Christ,  because  both  their  missions 
were  temporary  and  occasional."*  And  says  Dr. 
Whitby,  "  it  is  more  material  to  observe,  that  as  the 
first  mission  of  the  Apostles  was  only  for  a  season, 
and  ceased  at  their  return,  Mat.  x.  1 ;  so  was  this  first 
mission  of  the  seventy,  they  returning  quickly  from 
it;  v.  17."t  If  the  commissions,  then,  both  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  seventy  disciples  were  only  tem- 
porary, and  terminated  at  the  period  mentioned  by 
these  writers,  and  if  the  commission  of  the  latter  was 
never  renewed,  it  is  evident  that  it  does  not  furnish 
even  the  shadow  of  an  argument  for  maintaining  that 
there  ought  to  be  corresponding  standing  offices  in  the 
Christian  Church. 

1  have  only  farther  to  remark,  that  whatever  may 
have  been  the  duration  of  the  office  of  the  seventy, 
there  is  not  a  circumstance,  as  far  as  relates  to  their 
commission,  in  which  they  were  not  equal  to  the 
Apostles. 

Both  of  them  were  ordained  by  Christ  himself,  (Mat. 
x.  1;  Luke  x.  1.)  They  were  sent  forth  in  the  same 
number,  or  two  and  two,  (Mark  vi.  7;  Luke  x.  1;) 
were  appointed  to  deliver  the  same  message,  (Mat.  x. 
7  ;  Luke  x. ;)  were  furnished  with  the  same  gifts,  (Mat. 

*  Irenicum,  p.  211,  and  218. 

t  Exposition  of  Luke  x.  1-19.  He  endeavours  to  show  that  they 
received  a  second  commission,  which  he  says  extended  to  the  Gentiles ; 
hut  he  fails  entirely  in  establishing  the  latter  opinion. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


117 


x.  8;  Luke  x.  17;)  were  to  be  exposed  to  the  same 
dangers,  (Mat.  x.  16  ;  Luke  x.  3  ;)  were  to  depend  on 
the  same  support,  (Mat.  x.  9, 10 ;  Luke  x.  4,  7 ;)  were 
invested  with  the  same  authority,  (Mat.  x.  40 ;  Luke 
x.  16 ;)  and  if  their  message  was  disregarded,  it  was 
to  be  followed  by  the  same  consequences.  But  if  they 
were  completely  on  a  level  not  only  in  some,  but  in 
all  these  respects,  and  especially  in  regard  to  their 
gifts  and  authority,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  on  what 
ground  it  can  be  alleged  that  the  seventy  were  only 
of  an  inferior  order. 

Archbishop  Potter,  however,  labours  very  strenu- 
ously to  prove  their  inferiority ;  and  as  he  has  be- 
stowed more  than  common  pains  on  his  argument,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  examine  it.  "  Whereas  the  Apos- 
tles," says  he,  "  were  ordained  to  be  with  our  Lord, 
and  accordingly  are  every  where  throughout  the  Gos- 
pel reckoned  as  his  constant  attendants,  both  from  the 
time  of  their  ordination  till  they  were  sent  forth  to 
preach,  and  again  after  their  return  from  preaching 
till  his  ascension :  The  seventy  were  only  appointed 
to  preach,  and  after  they  returned  to  our  Lord  and 
gave  him  an  account  of  their  success  in  the  execution 
of  that  office,  they  are  never  once  mentioned  again."* 
But  this  evidently  is  no  proof  of  the  inferiority  of  the 
seventy ;  for  the  reason  why  the  Apostles  were  more 
frequently  with  their  Master,  was  not  that  they  were 
of  a  superior  order  to  the  others,  but  to  strengthen 
their  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  the  Redeemer 
when  their  commission  was  enlarged,  and  to  prepare 
them  for  the  place  which  they  were  destined  to  occupy 
in  the  Christian  Church.  There  were  others,  too,  it 
should  be  recollected,  besides  the  eleven,  who  attended 
upon  the  Redeemer  from  his  baptism  till  his  ascension, 
(Acts  i.  21,  22  ;)  and  yet  no  one,  I  presume,  will  infer 
from  this  circumstance  that  they  were  superior  to  the 
seventy. 

"  The  seventy,"  he  observes,  "  were  only  sent  be- 
fore our  Lord's  face  into  the  cities  and  places  whither 
he  himself  would  come,  to  prepare  the  people  for  his 

*  Discourse  of  Church  Government,  p.  47. 


118 


LETTERS  ON 


reception;  whereas  the  Apostles'  commission  was  in 
general  to  preach  to  all  the  Jews."*  But  neither  will 
this  demonstrate  the  inferiority  of  the  seventy,  for  they 
were  sent  forth  towards  the  end  of  his  ministry  to 
preach  in  the  cities  which  he  intended  to  visit,  and 
were  directed  to  travel  with  such  despatch,  (Luke  x. 
4,)  as  to  wait  to  salute  "no  man  by  the  way,"  while 
the  Apostles  were  sent  forth  at  a  much  earlier  period, 
and  could  travel  more  extensively  for  a  similar  pur- 
pose among  the  cities  of  Israel.  Both,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  like  so  many  John  Baptists,  and  were  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  the  way  of  their  Master  by  preach- 
ing the  same  truths,  aqfl  wherever  they  came  they 
were  to  exercise  the  same  powers  ;  and  if  so,  the  more 
extended  journeyings  of  the  one,  because  they  were 
sent  forth  sooner  to  the  very  same  work,  cannot  fur- 
nish the  slightest  evidence  that  they  were  of  a  superior 
order  to  the  others.  Timothy  and  Titus,  who  you  say 
were  bishops,  could  not  itinerate  so  extensively  as  the 
Apostles,  and  yet  there  is  not  an  Episcopalian  who 
would  consider  this  as  a  proof  that  they  were  of  an 
inferior  order  to  the  latter,  when  viewed  merely  as 
bishops. 

"  The  inauguration  of  the  seventy  to  their  office," 
says  he,  "  was  not  so  solemn  as  that  of  the  twelve, 
before  which  our  Lord  not  only  commanded  his  dis- 
ciples to  pray  to  God  to  send  forth  labourers  into  his 
harvest,  but  he  continued  a  whole  night  in  prayer  by 
himself."t  As  he  commanded  his  disciples,  however, 
to  pray  also  before  he  sent  forth  the  seventy,  we  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  he  himself  would  pray, 
(Luke  x.  2;  Mat.  ix.  37,  38.)  Besides,  no  such  solem- 
nity was  enjoined  before  the  ordination  of  Matthias 
to  the  apostleship,  for  the  Apostles  are  said  to  have 
prayed  only  at  the  time  that  "  the  Lord  would  show 
them  which  of  the  two  candidates  he  had  chosen ;" 
nor  did  it  precede  that  of  Paul,  who,  according  to  the 
Archbishop's  reasoning,  must  have  been  equal  only 
to  the  seventy,  and  they  and  that  Jlpostle  must 


Discourse  of  Church  Government,  p.  47.  t  Ibid. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


119 


have  been  inferior  to  the  deacons,  for  the  latter  were 
set  apart  to  their  office  (Acts  vi.)  by  prayer,  as  well 
as  the  imposition  of  hands. 

When  he  asserts,  that  "  the  twelve  only  received 
the  commission  to  commemorate  the  sacrifice  of  our 
Lord  on  the  cross,  and  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all 
nations,"*  the  first  part  of  his  statement  is  incorrect; 
for  in  the  passage  to  which  he  refers,  as  was  already 
noticed,  they  were  commanded  only  to  observe  and 
not  to  administer  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper, — a 
duty  in  respect  of  which  they  were  on  an  equality 
with  the  seventy,  and  with  every  Christian.  And  the 
last  of  these  powers  was  bestowed  on  them  by  the 
Redeemer  after  his  resurrection,  when  he  enlarged 
their  commission,  and  when  the  seventy,  at  least  in 
their  former  character,  as  their  commission  was  not 
renewed,  were  no  longer  a  part  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Church. 

He  argues,  that  the  twelve  must  have  been  superior 
to  the  seventy,  because  "  twelve  thrones  were  ap- 
pointed, whereon  these  twelve  men  should  sit  to 
judge  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  And  yet  he  for- 
gets to  show  that  this  promise  was  fulfilled  to  them 
during  the  life  of  their  Master,  when  they  and  the 
seventy  were  engaged  in  his  service,  and  not  accord- 
ing to  its  obvious  meaning  under  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation, when  the  seventy  had  ceased  to  be  ministers, 
and  they  themselves  had  been  elevated  to  the  princi- 
pal place  in  the  Christian  Church.  And  he  observes, 
that  "  the  twelve  foundations  of  the  new  Jerusalem 
were  to  contain  the  names  of  the  twelve  Apostles."t 
But  this  is  a  prediction  of  nothing  which  was  to  hap- 
pen in  regard  to  them  during  our  Lord's  ministry, 
while  the  seventy  were  with  them,  but  only  of  the 
foundation  of  the  Millennial  Church  on  the  very  doc- 
trines on  which  they  founded  the  New  Testament 
Church  after  the  resurrection  of  the  Redeemer,  and 
has  not  the  most  distant  reference  to  the  point  at 
issue.    The  very  same  doctrines  might  be  preached 


*  Dis  course  of  Church  Government,  p.  48. 


t  Ibid. 


120 


LETTERS  OX 


by  the  seventy  while  their  ministry  lasted,  and  they 
may  still  be  preached  by  evangelical  ministers.  But 
as  the  Apostles  were  invested  with  the  highest  of  the 
three  extraordinary  offices  in  the  New  Testament 
Church,  (Eph.  iv.  11,)  and  not  only  preached  these, 
doctrines,  but,  under  the  guidance  of  inspiration, 
wrote  those  Epistles  which  were  to  be  the  only  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  in  regard  to  these  truths  throughout 
future  ages,  they  are  represented  figuratively,  in  con- 
sequence of  what  they  did  in  the  New  Testament 
Church,  as  having  their  names  engraved  in  the  foun- 
dations of  the  Millennial  Church,  or,  according  to 
others,  of  the  Church  in  glory. 

Nor  is  he  a  whit  more  successful  in  his  last  obser- 
vation, though  he  seems  to  consider  it  as  furnishing  a 
very  powerful  argument  for  establishing  his  opinion. 
"  When  a  vacancy  happened,"  says  he,  "  in  the  Col- 
lege of  Apostles,  by  the  apostasy  of  Judas,  another 
was,  in  a  most  solemn  manner,  by  divine  designation, 
appointed  to  take  his  bishoprick.  Matthias,  the  per- 
son ordained  to  succeed  Judas,  if  any  credit  may  be 
given  to  Eusebius,  was  one  of  the  seventy;  and  Bar- 
nabas, Mark,  Luke,  Sosthenes,  and  other  Evangelists, 
as  also  the  seven  deacons,  who  were  all,  undoubtedly, 
even  after  their  promotion  to  these  offices,  inferior  to 
the  twelve  Apostles,  if  the  primitive  fathers  of  the 
Church  may  be  believed,  were  also  of  the  seventy."* 
If  the  office  of  the  seventy,  as  has  been  repeatedly 
remarked,  after  accomplishing  its  end,  had  ceased  to 
exist  before  the  death  of  the  Redeemer,  it  presents  an 
easy  and  satisfactory  solution  of  these  imaginary  diffi- 
culties. Matthias,  who  previously  was  without  any 
office,  though  he  had  been  one  of  the  seventy,  was  not 
only  promoted  to  an  office,  but  to  the  very  highest  in 
the  New  Testament  Church.  The  same  would  be  the 
case  with  Barnabas,  Mark,  and  Sosthenes,  when  they 
were  appointed  evangelists;  for  if  they  formerly  be- 
longed to  the  seventy,  they  were  then  without  an 
office,  and  yet  were  advanced  to  a  superior  office.  And 
the  same  remark  applies  even  to  the  seven  individuals 

*  Discourse  of  Church  Government,  pp.  48,  49. 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


121 


who  were  ordained  to  be  deacons;  for  though  they 
had  been  of  the  number  of  the  seventy,  they  also  were 
without  an  office;  and  to  men  who  have  no  office  the 
very  lowest  is  promotion.  But  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  the  Archbishop,  Bishop  Bilson  and  Mr.  Jones,  this 
is  completely  inexplicable;  for  if  the  seventy  were 
not  only  a  standing  order  in  the  Church,  but  the 
second  order,  instead  of  being  promoted  when  they 
weie  made  deacons,  they  would  have  been  degraded, 
for  deacons  belong  only  to  the  third  order.  In  every 
point  of  view,  therefore,  this  boasted  argument,  in  all 
the  forms  in  which  it  has  been  presented  by  the  lead- 
ing defenders  of  Episcopacy,  utterly  fails;  and  if  your 
ecclesiastical  polity  can  be  vindicated  only  on  such 
grounds  as  these,  it  must  be  revolting  alike  to  e^ery 
man  of  Christian  feeling  and  sober  sense,  to  hear  you 
propound  the  monstrous  doctrine,  that  where  it  does 
not  exist  there  can  be  neither  a  Christian  Church,  nor 
a  Christian  ministry,  nor  any  covenanted  title  to  the 
blessings  of  salvation.* 

1  am,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  X. 

The  argument  of  Archdeacon  Daubeny  and  Bishop  Gleig,  for  the  order  of 
bishops,  from  the  extraordinary  office  assigned  to  the  Apostles  in  the  New 
Testament  Church,  proved  to  be  fallacious. — It  no  more  follows  from  what 
ia  said  in  Matthew  xxviii.  20,  that  there  are  to  be  Apostles  till  the  end  of 
the  world,  than  from  what  is  said  in  Ephesians  iv.  11-13,  that  there  are 
to  be  New  Testament  Prophets  and  Evangelists  till  that  time.— That  office 
proved  to  have  ceased  as  to  its  peculiar  powers  with  those  who  were  first 
invested  with  it,  because  no  one  since  their  death  has  possessed  the  quali- 
fications which  it  required,  nor  has  been  called  to  it  in  the  way  in  which 
they  were  appointed,  nor  has  been  instructed  by  inspiration  like  them  in 
the  truths  which  he  was  to  deliver,  nor  could  perform  miracles. — Sutclive, 
Willet,  Barrow  and  others,  deny  that  bishops  succeed  Apostles  in  their 
peculiar  powers. 

Reverend  Sir, — It  is  alleged,  however,  by  many  of 
the  advocates  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  that  whatever 

*  It  deserves  to  be  mentioned,  that  Willet,  in  his  Synopsis,  Appen. 
dix  to  the  Fifth  General  Controv.,  Quest.  3,  refutes  this  very  argu- 
ment, when  it  was  urged  by  Cardinal  Bellarniine,  for  the  divine  right 
of  Episcopacy. 


122 


LETTERS  ON 


may  be  thought  of  the  preceding  arguments,  the  supe- 
riority of  bishops  to  presbyters  and  deacons  is  abso- 
lutely indisputable,  because  they  are  represented  in 
Scripture  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  as 
invested  with  the  office,  and  possessed  of  all  the  high 
and  pre-eminent  authority  which  belonged  to  these 
ministers  in  the  early  Church.  Such  was  the  opinion 
of  the  late  Archdeacon  Daubeny,  who  asserts,  that 
"there  was  no  other  difference  between  the  Apostles 
and  bishops  but  this, — the  Apostles  being  confessedly 
the  first  planters  of  the  Gospel,  were  general  and  am- 
bulatory bishops,  having  the  care  and  superintendence 
of  all  the  Churches,  2  Cor.  xi.  28;  but  bishops  tvere 
Jlpostles  fixed  in  the  jurisdiction  of  one  city  or  pro- 
vince."* Such  also  was  the  opinion  of  Bishop  Gleig, 
who  endeavoured  to  support  it  by  a  lengthened  argu- 
ment in  the  Anti-Jacobin  Review;  and  such,  as  will 
appear  in  the  course  of  this  and  the  following  letter, 
was  the  opinion  of  others  of  the  most  zealous  defend- 
ers of  your  ecclesiastical  polity. 

I  acknowledge,  that  if  this  statement  were  borne 
out  by  fact  it  would  be  decisive  of  the  question,  and 
we  could  not  too  soon  submit  to  your  bishops,  and 
attach  ourselves  to  your  communion.  But  before  we 
can  do  this  we  must  be  convinced  of  two  things; — 
first,  that  the  apostleship,  with  all  its  high  and  pecu- 
liar powers,  remains  in  the  Church,  and  is  possessed 
by  your  prelates;  and  next,  that  if  these  have  ceased, 
and  nothing  but  its  ordinary  powers  continue,  which 
were  exercised  by  the  Apostles  in  the  primitive  Church, 
as  was  formerly  proved,  along  with  presbyters,  they 
may  not  still  be  exercised,  when  the  apostleship  is 
extinct  as  to  its  peculiar  powers,  and  distinguishing 
prerogatives,  by  elders  or  presbyters. 

You  imagine  that  you  can  produce  satisfactory  evi- 
dence for  the  perpetual  duration  of  the  apostolic  office; 
for  our  "  Saviour,"  says  Bishop  Gleig,  "  when  he 
gave  authority  to  the  eleven  to  convert  and  baptize 
the  nations,  expressly  declared  that  he  would  be  with 

*  Appendix  to  his  Guide  to  the  Church,  p.  63. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


123 


them  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.''''*  But 
if  you  really  think  so,  and  are  persuaded  that  your 
prelates  are  Apostles,,  why  do  you  not  call  them  by 
that  name,  and  speak  of  the  Apostle  as  well  as  the 
Bishop  of  Durham,  or  Exeter,  or  Glasgow,  or  Argyle, 
or  any  other  diocese  in  England  and  Scotland?  And 
if  you  believe  that  the  apostleship,  in  its  higher  powers 
and  peculiar  functions,  is  to  continue  in  the  Church, 
because  the  Saviour  promised  to  the  eleven  that  he 
would  be  with  them  always  till  the  end  of  the  world,  I 
beg  to  be  informed,  whether  you  believe  also  that  the 
two  next  higher  orders  are  to  remain  along  with  it  and 
that  they  exist  in  the  Church  in  the  present  day?  For 
you  know  it  is  declared  by  Paul,  that  the  Redeemer 
"gave"  not  only  "some  apostles,  but  some  prophets, 
and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers, 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  and  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ; 
till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  the  ac- 
knowledgment (tTuyvtofftus)  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  a  per- 
fect man,  to  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness 
of  Christ,"  (Eph.  iv.  1 1-1 3,)  which  will  not  be  attained 
either  by  any  individual  saint,  or  by  the  whole  mystical 
body,  or  Church  of  Christ  collectively,  till  the  end  of 
the  world.  "These  prophets,"  says  Gersom  Bucer, 
"  were  that  order  of  ministers  who,  under  the  super- 
natural direction  of  the  Spirit,  explained  the  predic- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament,  and  occasionally  foretold 
future  events  ;"t  and  if  we  may  believe  Saravia,  the 

*  Article  on  Dr.  Campbell's  Lectures  on  Church  History  in  the 
Anti-Jacobin,  vol.  9. 

t  "  Prophetae  mihi  eximii  interpretes  qui  propheticae  Scripturae 
sensum  insigni  quodam  revelationis  dono  ecclesiae  pandebant,"  &c. 
Dissertatio  de  Gubernatione  Ecclesiae,  p.  2.  Nor  is  it  any  objection 
to  this,  that  the  interpretations  given  by  one  prophet  through  revela- 
tion, 1  Cor.  xiv.  30,  were  allowed  to  be  judged  of  by  other  prophets, 
v.  20-32.  Even  the  private  members  of  the  Church  of  Berea,  (Acts 
xvii.  11,)  "searched  the  Scriptures  daily,"  to  ascertain  whether  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles  was  consistent  with  the  Old  Testament,  and 
are  praised  for  doing  so;  and  yet  the  Apostles  were  assisted  by  the 
same  supernatural  influence  with  the  prophets.  I  would  only  farther 
remark,  that  as  soon  as  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  com- 
pleted, and  sufficient  information  was  communicated  to  the  Church 


124 


LETTERS  ON 


friend  of  Hooker,  "were  superior  to  bishops."*  And 
I  shall  by  and  by  inquire  into  the  office  of  evangelists. 
I  presume  you  are  convinced  that  both  these  offices 
have  long  ago  been  discontinued,  and  that  neither 
prophets  nor  evangelists  are  to  be  found  in  your 
Church,  or  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  though 
you  tell  us  you  have  Apostles  ;  and  if  the  former  have 
ceased,  though  it  was  announced  that  they  were  to 
continue  till  the  whole  Christian  Church  had  attained 
the  stature  of  a  perfect  man,  I  deny  that  you  can  infer 
the  perpetual  continuance  of  the  apostolic  office  in  its 
peculiar  powers  and  higher  functions,  any  more  than 
the  prophetic,  from  the  promise  of  the  Redeemer,  that 
he  would  be  with  the  eleven  always  to  the  end  of  the 
world. 

I  would  remark,  farther,  that  as  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible to  prove,  from  that  passage,  that  the  apostleship 
was  to  continue,  so  it  is  evident,  from  a  great  variety 
of  considerations  which  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
that  it  was  an  extraordinary  office,  and  has  for  a  long 
time  been  extinct. 

Every  one  is  aware  that  an  office  may  be  necessary 
for  arranging  the  affairs  and  organizing  the  govern- 
ment of  an  infant  colony,  or  a  disordered  province,  for 
the  execution  of  which  special  powers  may  be  dele- 
gated to  one  or  several  commissioners ;  and  that  as 
soon  as  they  have  accomplished  the  task  which  was 
assigned  to  them,  they  are  recalled  by  their  sovereign, 

respecting  those  ancient  predictions  which  related  to  the  Saviour,  this 
order  of  ministers  was  discontinued,  as  they  were  no  longer  ne- 
cessary. 

It  would  seem,  that  after  they  had  finished  their  interpretation  of 
any  of  the  prophecies,  they  concluded  it  with  an  address,  for  we  are 
told,  Acts  xv.  32,  that  "  Judas  and  Silas  also  being  prophets  them- 
selves, exhorted  the  brethren." 

*  "  As  the  authority  of  an  Apostle,"  says  he,  de  Minist  Evang. 
Grad.,  cap.  1,  "was  superior  to  that  of  an  evangelist,  and  the  au- 
thority of  a  prophet  and  of  an  evangelist  to  that  of  a  bishop  or  a  pres- 
byter; so  the  authority  of  Titus  and  Timothy,  who  were  presbyters 
and  bishops,  was  superior  to  that  of  the  presbyters,  who,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Apostle,  were  ordained  by  them  in  every  city.  Nam 
quemadmodum  major  Apostoli  authoritas  fuit  quam  Evangelistae," 
&.C    See,  too,  Hooker's  Life  by  Bishop  Gauden. 


PTTSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


125 


and  their  office  discontinued.  It  was  so,  for  instance, 
on  a  recent  occasion,  in  the  history  of  our  own  country, 
when  the  late  Lord  Sydenham  was  sent  to  Canada, 
with  special  powers  to  settle  the  affairs  of  that  distant 
colony,  which  have  ceased  already  ;  and  no  one  would 
affirm,  that  because  they  were  vested  in  him  they  will 
be  continued  to  every  succeeding  governor.  And  for 
aught  that  appears  it  may  have  been  so  in  regard  to 
the  twelve  apostles,*  who  are  represented  by  Daubeny 
as  "  confessedly  the  first  planters  of  the  Gospel,"  and 
who  may  have  been  furnished  with  high  and  extra- 
ordinary powers,  which  have  not  descended  to  others, 
for  founding  and  organizing  the  Christian  Church. 
And  that  this  was  really  the  case,  and  though  they 
acted  sometimes  as  ordinary  ministers,  in  which  re- 
spects they  have  been  succeeded  by  ordinary  ministers, 
yet,  when  they  acted  as  Apostles,  they  sustained  a 
character,  and  were  invested  with  an  office  in  which 
they  had  no  successors,  will  appear,  I  apprehend,  from 
the  following  considerations : 

Qualifications  were  required  for  the  office  of  an 
Apostle,  which  have  not  been  possessed  by  any  for 
many  hundred  years,  and  which  cannot  now  be  at- 
tained, from  which  it  evidently  follows  that  it  must 
no  longer  exist. 

To  fit  an  individual  for  being  invested  with  this 
office  it  was  necessary,  we  are  informed,  that  he  should 
have  seen  the  Saviour,  if  not  before,  yet  at  least  after 
his  resurrection.  When  a  successor,  accordingly,  was 
appointed  to  Judas,  it  was  mentioned  by  Peter  as  an 

*  "  The  Apostles  and  Evangelists,"  says  Calderwood,  (Altare  Da- 
mascenum,  p.  174,)  "exercised  the  powers  of  ordination  and  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  Church,  and  yet  it  will  not  follow  that  Apostles  and  Evan- 
gelists must  remain  in  the  Church  till  the  end  of  the  world.  Moses 
and  his  successor  Joshua  led  the  people  of  God  through  the  desert, 
and  brought  them  into  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  yet  when  the  people 
were  settled  in  that  land,  it  was  not  needful  that  Moses  and  Joshua 
should  have  successors  of  the  same  political  order.  And,  in  like  man- 
ner,  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  led  the  faithful  through  the  wilder- 
ness of  Paganism,  and  planted  the  Churches;  and  yet  it  is  no  more 
needful  that  we  should  choose  others  to  succeed  them  with  the  same 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Evangelistae  et  Apostoli  potestatem.  ordi- 
nationis  et  jurisdictionis  exercebant,"  &c. 


126 


LETTERS  ON 


indispensable  prerequisite,  that  "  he  should  be  one  of 
those  who  had  companied  with  them-,  (the  eleven)  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among 
them;"  because,  as  he  adds,  he  was  to  be  "  a  witness 
with  them  of  bis  resurrection  ;"  Acts  i.  21,  22.  And 
when  Paul  proves  his  apostleship  to  the  Corinthians, 
he  rests  it  among  other  things  upon  his  having  seen 
the  Lord.  "Am  I  not  an  Apostle?"  says  he,  1  Cor. 
ix.  1,  "  Am  I  not  free  ?"  i.  e.  as  to  the  matters  of  which 
he  had  been  speaking  in  the  preceding  chapter,  "  Have 
I  not  seen  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  ?"  But  if  it  was  in- 
dispensable to  this  office,  that  the  person  who  was  in- 
vested with  it  should  have  seen  the  Lord,  and  if  none 
of  your  bishops,  nor  any  other  prelates  since  diocesan 
Episcopacy  was  first  established,  have  ever  seen  him, 
I  cannot  see  on  what  ground  you  can  consider  them 
as  Apostles,  or  claim  for  them  that  high  and  para- 
mount authority  which  belonged  to  an  office  that  must 
now  be  extinct. 

If  it  be  objected  with  Bishop  Gleig,  that  "  this  could 
not  constitute  the  essence  of  the  apostleship,  because 
our  blessed  Lord  was  seen  in  the  flesh  of  above  five 
hundred  brethren  at  once  after  he  rose  from  the  dead, 
though  there  were  then  only  eleven  Apostles,"*  I 
have  briefly  to  remark,  that  it  is  not  represented  as 
the  essence  of  that  office,  but  only  as  an  essential 
qualification  for  it.  Every  one,  in  other  words,  who 
had  seen  the  Redeemer  after  he  rose  from  the  dead, 
did  not,  in  consequence  of  it,  become  an  Apostle  ;  but 
no  one  without  it  could  be  made  an  Apostle.  And 
as  there  is  not  at  present  a  diocesan  bishop  who  has 
seen  the  Lord,  none  can  either  have  a  right  to  the  name, 
or  be  entitled  to  exercise  the  powers  of  an  Apostle. 

The  call  of  an  Apostle,  also,  to  his  high  office  was 
external  and  immediate  from  the  Redeemer  himself. 

It  was  in  this  way  that  the  eleven  were  admitted  to 
their  office  after  the  resurrection  of  their  master ;  and 
it  was  in  a  similar  way  that  Matthias  was  appointed; 
for  we  are  told  that  the  disciples  prayed  to  the  Lord 

*  Article  on  Dr.  Campbell's  Lectures  in  the  Anti-Jacobin,  vol.  9. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


127 


to  show  them  "  which  of  the  two  candidates  he  had 
chosen;  and  that  by  a  supernatural  influence,  exerted 
on  their  minds,  he  directed  them  to  Matthias.*  And 
the  same,  too,  was  the  way  in  which  it  was  bestowed 
upon  Paul;  for  when  he  proves  to  the  Galatians  that 
he  was  an  Apostle,  he  tells  them,  (chap.  i.  1,)  that  he 
was  "  an  Apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father," — plainly  intimating 
that  if  he  had  received  his  office  by  the  instrumentality 
of  men,  and  not  immediately  from  the  Saviour,  he 
would  have  been  unworthy  of  the  name.  But  if  this 
be  the  case,  and  if  none  of  your  bishops,  nor  any 
diocesan  that  ever  existed,  received  his  office  imme- 
diately from  Christ,  and  if  all  of  them  obtained  it  by 
human  instrumentality,  they  cannot  be  Apostles,  nor 
be  entitled  to  exercise  the  peculiar  powers  of  these 
early  ministers,  and  the  office  itself  must  undoubtedly 
be  extinct. 

In  the  third  place,  an  Apostle  was  instructed  by  re- 
velution  in  the  truths  which  he  delivered,  and  whether 
he  wrote  or  preached,  it  was  under  the  supernatural 
direction  of  the  Spirit. 

It  will  scarcely  be  denied  that  this  was  the  case  with 
the  twelve  after  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  it  is  equally  plain  that  it  was  the 
case  with  Paul,  for  he  says  to  the  Galatians,  (chap, 
i.  11,  12,)  "But  I  certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  Gospel 
which  was  preached  of  me  is  not  after  man.  For  I 
neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  ivas  I  taught  it, 
but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  It  was  impos- 
sible, therefore,  that  any  Apostle  could  fall  into  error, 
whether  he  preached  or  wrote,  when  he  was  under  the 
supernatural  guidance  of  the  Spirit.  And  though  in- 
struction in  the  truth  by  means  of  revelation,  and  infal- 
lible direction  in  speaking  and  writing  about  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  might  be  communicated  to  others 
who  were  not  Apostles,  yet  no  one  could  be  an  Apos- 

*  "The  lot  which  fell  on  Matthias,"  says  Spanhcim,  "was  really 
the  voice  of  God,  no  less  than  was  that  of  the  division  of  Canaan,  of 
the  scape-goat,  &c.  De  Matthia  sorte,  id  est  divina  voce,  qualiter  in 
distributione  terrae,  in  scgrcgatione  hirci,"  &c.    Dissert.  27. 


128 


LETTERS  ON 


tie  without  it.  If  this,  however,  was  another  of  the 
privileges  of  these  distinguished  ministers,  and  if  none 
of  your  bishops  have  ever  advanced  the  smallest  claim 
to  it,  and  it  is  possessed  by  none  in  the  present  day, 
it  is  impossible  to  see  how  they  can  be  considered 
as  Apostles,  or  can  have  a  right  to  exercise  the  powers 
of  that  office.* 

The  power  of  working  miracles  to  attest  his  com- 
mission seems  to  have  been  inseparably  connected 
with  the  office  of  an  Apostle.  Paul  accordingly  tells 
the  Corinthians,  (2  Cor.  xii.  12,)  that  "  truly  the  signs 
of  an  Jlposth  had  been  wrought  among  them  in  all 
patience,  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds, 
sv  at]/j.ttoi;  xav  te^aai  xat,  Swa/teat,  ;"t  plainly  intimating 
that  where  such  miracles  were  not  performed,  the 
individual  coidd  not  be  considered  as  an  Apostle,  and 
had  no  right  to  claim  to  himself  that  high  character. 
And  the  same  thing  is  mentioned  elsewhere  of  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles.  Others,  it  is  true,  might  possess 
this  power,  and  might  not  be  Apostles,  but  no  one 
who  wanted  it  could  be  included  among  these  minis- 
ters. And  not  only  was  it  requisite  that  he  should 
possess  this  power,  but  that  he  should  have  it  to  a 
greater  extent  than  any  other  minister;  for  none  but 
an  Apostle,  so  far  as  is  mentioned  in  Scripture,  was 
able  to  communicate  miraculous  gifts  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands;  and  "the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is 
represented  by  Bishop  Bilson  as  "  the  verie  seale  of 
his  apostleship." X  Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  that 
Ananias  is  stated  to  have  put  his  hands  on  Saul,  (Paul,) 
Acts  ix.  17,  and  said  to  him,  "  The  Lord,  even  Jesus, 
that  appeared  to  thee  in  the  way  hath  sent  me,  that 
thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the 

*  Origen,  when  speaking  of  the  twelve  Apostles  in  his  18th  Homily 
on  Joshua,  torn.  i.  p.  370,  says,  "  Assuredly  they  were  wiser  than 
those  who  now  ordain  bishops,  or  presbyters,  or  deacons.  Utique 
multo  sapientiores  erant  quam  ii  qui  nunc  episcopos,  vel  presbyteros, 
vel  diaconos  ordinant,"  where  he  evidently  distinguishes  Apostles 
from  Bishops. 

t  Compare  Acts  ii.  22,  viii.  13,  Rom.  xv.  19,  Heb.  ii.  4,  Matthew 
xii.  38,  39,  John  ii.  ll.xviii.23. 

t  Acts  viii.  14-17,  xix.  6.    Perpetual  Government,  p.  85. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


129 


Holy  Ghost,"  for  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  spiritual  gifts 
appears  to  have  been  given  not  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  Ananias,  but  at  the  baptism  of  Saul, 
which  is  said  in  the  next  verse  to  have  taken  place 
immediately.  But  whatever  there  may  be  in  this, 
the  power  of  working  miracles  was  indispensable  to 
an  Apostle;  and  as  it  is  not  possessed  by  any  of  your 
bishops,  or  any  other  bishop  in  the  present  day,  they 
cannot  have  any  claim  to  the  name  of  Apostles,  and 
the  office  which  requires  such  a  supernatural  power 
must  unquestionably  have  ceased. 

And,  in  the  last  place,  the  authority  of  an  Apostle 
was  of  a  much  higher  order,  and  his  commission  more 
extensive  than  that  of  any  other  minister  either  in  the 
primitive  Church  or  in  the  present  day. 

So  far  from  being  restricted  to  any  particular  dio- 
cese, we  are  informed  that  the  eleven  were  empowered 
by  their  Master  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  perform  all 
the  other  duties  of  their  office,  not  only  "  in  Judea  and 
Samaria,  but  among  all  nations — to  every  creature, 
and  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth;"*  so  that, 
in  the  language  of  Whitaker, "  it  may  be  most  truly 
affirmed  that  they  were  bishops  of  the  whole  world, 
and  the  whole  world  was  their  diocese."t  And  as 
none  of  your  bishops  has  such  a  commission,  and  as 
no  other  bishop  has  such  a  diocese,  his  conclusion  is 
irresistible,  that  "  they  must  be  mere  dabblers  in  theo- 

*  Math,  xxviii.  19,  Mark  xvi.  15,  Acts  i.  8. 

+  I'ossis  vcrissime  dicere  Apostulos  fuisse  episcopos  totius  tnundi, 
mundumque  totum  fuisse  Apostolorum  fiouainv."  De  Pontif.,  Quaest. 
ii.  cap.  8,  sec.  41. 

"The  office  of  an  Apostle,"  says  Jewel,  also,  in  his  Exposition  of 
the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  p.  123,  "  was  not  to  rest  in 
any  one  certain  place,  but  to  passe  from  country  to  country,  from  land 
to  land,  and  to  fill  all  the  world  with  knowledge  of  the  Gospel),  and 
therein  appeareth  the  difference  between  an  Apostle  and  a  bishop — a 
bishop  had  the  charge  of  one  certaine  Church,  an  Apostle  had  the 
charge  over  all  the  Churches." 

"  Paul  was  not  tied  to  any  one  citie,  or  iland,  or  country.  He  had 
authority  to  preach  to  all  cities  and  countries,  to  all  lands  and  Hands, 
from  the  east  to  the  west.  So  did  Christ  appoint  his  Apostles. — The 
whole  world  was  their  diocesse  and  their  province. — Therefore,  if  any 
of  the  Apostles  should  have  staid  in  one  place,  and  have  gone  no 
farther,  he  had  offended  and  done  otherwise  than  Christ  commanded." 

9 


130 


LETTERS  ON 


logy  who  assert  that  the  apostolic  authority  still 
remains  in  the  Church."*  And  as  there  are  none 
who  can  labour  wherever  they  please  in  such  a  dio- 
cese, so  there  are  none  who  can  lay  claim  to  the  same 
high  authority.  "  That  the  Apostles,"  says  Bilson, 
"  had  a  superiour  vocation  above  Prophets,  Evange- 
lists, Pastours,  Teachers,  and  even  the  government 
and  oversight  of  them,  will  soone  appeare,  if  we  con- 
sider what  Paul  the  Apostle  writeth  of  himselfe,  and 
unto  them,  directing,  appointing  and  limitting  as  well 
Prophets  as  Evangelists,  (and  therefore  much  more 
Pastours  and  Teachers,)  what  to  do,  and  how  to  be 
conversant  in  the  Church  of  God."t  Where  is  the 
man  among  all  your  bishops  whom  prophets  or  evan- 
gelists would  acknowledge  to  be  their  superior,  or 
who,  if  any  of  them  were  living,  could  lay  upon  them 
his  commands,  or  say  with  an  Apostle,  "  Thus  ordain 
I  in  all  the  Churches?"  Or  where  is  the  individual 
who,  as  he  travelled  through  the  world,  could  sum- 
mon before  him  not  only  the  members  but  the  minis- 
ters of  every  Church,  and  sit  in  judgment  on  their 
conduct  ?  All  this,  however,  was  done  by  the  Apos- 
tles when  they  acted  in  that  character,  and  if  no  one 
now  would  attempt  to  do  it,  does  it  not  present  a 
strong  and  unanswerable  argument  to  prove  that 
he  has  no  right  to  be  considered  as  an  Apostle,  and 
that  that  office  must  long  ago  have  ceased  in  the 
Church? 

So  undeniably  does  this  conclusion  follow  from 
these  premises,  that  it  is  admitted  by  many  of  your 
eminent  divines,  who  state  it  even  as  a  principle  which 
cannot  be  controverted  in  their  reasonings  with  the 
Papists.  "  Apostles  and  pastors,  or  bishops  properly 
so  called,"  says  Sutclive,  "  are  so  distinguished  in 
Scripture,  that  it  is  one  thing  plainly  to  be  an  Apos- 
tle, and  another  to  be  a  pastor  or  bishop. "J    "  His 

*  "  Unde  intelligi  potest  quam  inconsiderate  quidam  theologati 
affirmant  apostolicam  authoritatem  adhuc  in  Ecclesia  remanere."  De 
Pontif.  Lib.  1,  Quaest.  8,  cap.  3,  not.  2. 

t  Perpetual  Government,  p.  45. 

X  Do  Pontif.,  lib.  2,  cap.  10,  where  he  proves  that  Peter  was  not  a 
bishop.    "Although  the  Roman  bishops,"  says  he,  "succeeded  Peter 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


131 


argument  concludeth  not,"  says  Willet  of  Bellarmine, 
"  Apostles  were  above  disciples,  ergo  bishops,  &c. 
unlesse  he  doe  assume  thus;  but  bishops  are  Apos- 
tles, which  is  denied  by  Ignatius,  who,  though  he 
were  neere  to  the  Apostles'  time,  being  the  third 
bishop  of  Antioch  after  Peter,  and  had  seene  Christ 
after  his  resurrection,  yet  writing  to  the  Antiochians 
saith, — I  do  not  command  these  things  as  an  Apos- 
tle."* And  omitting  what  has  been  said  by  Whitaker 
and  Lightfoot,t  nothing  can  be  more  decided  than 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Barrow,  or  more  convincing  than 
his  arguments.  "  It  is  a  rule,"  says  he,  "in  the  canon 
law,  that  a  personal  privilege  doth  follow  the  person, 
and  is  extinguished  with  the  person.  The  apostolical 
office  as  such  was  personal  and  temporary;  and  there- 
fore, according  to  nature  and  design,  not  successive 
or  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  descendence 
from  them.    It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extra- 

in  doctrine  and  the  chair,  yet  they  succeeded  him  not  in  his  apostle- 
ship,  but  the  latter  bishops  in  neither.  Quare  etiam  olim  Romani 
episcopi,"  &c.  p.  175,  176. 

*  Appendix  to  the  Fifth  Generall  Controversie.  Quest.  3,  Synopsis, 
Papismi. 

t  "  Bellarmine,"  says  Whitaker,  "  seems  to  say,  the  Pope  succeeds 
Peter  in  his  apostleship.  But  none  can  have  apostolic  power  but  he 
who  is  properly  and  truly  an  Apostle;  for  the  power  and  office  of  an 
Apostle  constitute  an  Apostle.  But  that  the  Pope  is  neither  truly 
nor  properly  an  Apostle,  is  proved  by  these  arguments  whereby  Paul 
proves  his  apostleship,  as  that  he  was  not  called  by  men,"  &c.  De 
Pontif.  Roman.,  lib.  4.  cap.  25. 

"  When  Paul,"  says  Dr.  Lightfoot,  vol.  i.  p.  788,  "  reckoneth  the 
several  kinds  of  ministry  that  Christ  Jesus  left  in  the  Church  at  his 
ascension,  Eph.  iv.  11,  and  Cor.  xii.  28,  there  is  none  that  can  think 
them  all  to  be  perpetuated,  or  that  they  should  continue  successively 
in  the  like  order  from  time  to  time ;  for  within  an  hundred  years 
after  our  Saviour's  birth  where  were  either  prophets  or  evangelists, 
miracles  or  healings?  And  if  these  extraordinary  kinds  of  ministra- 
tion were  ordained  but  for  a  time,  and  for  special  occasion,  and  were 
not  to  be  imitated  in  the  Church  unto  succeeding  times;  much  more, 
or  at  the  least  as  much  more  were  the  Apostles,  an  order  much  more, 
at  least  as  much  extraordinary  as  they. 

"  These  things  well  considered,  if  there  were  no  more,  it  will  show 
how  improbable  and  unconsonant  the  first  inference  is — that  because 
there  was  a  subordination  between  the  Apostles  and  Philip,  (Acts  viii.) 
that  therefore  the  like  is  to  be  reputed  betwixt  bishops  and  other 
ministers,  and  that  bishops  in  the  Church  are  in  the  place  of  the  Apos- 
tles." 


132 


LETTERS  ON 


ordinary;  conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed 
for  special  purposes,  discharged  by  special  aids,  en- 
dowed with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful  for  the 
propagation  of  Christianity  and  founding  of  churches. 
To  that  office  it  was  requisite  that  the  persons  should 
have  an  immediate  assignation  and  commission  from 
God.  It  was  requisite  that  an  Apostle  should  be  able 
to  attest  respecting  our  Lord's  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion. It  was  needful,  also,  that  an  Apostle  should  be 
endowed  with  miraculous  gifts  and  graces,  enabling 
him  both  to  assure  his  authority  and  to  execute  his 
office.  It  was  also,  in  St.  Chrysostom's  opinion,  pro- 
per to  an  Apostle  that  he  should  be  able,  according 
to  his  discretion,  in  a  certain  and  conspicuous  manner, 
to  impart  spiritual  gifts.  It  was  also  a  privilege  of 
an  Apostle,  by  virtue  of  his  commission  from  Christ, 
to  instruct  all  nations  in  the  doctrine  and  law  of 
Christ.  Apostles  also  did  govern  in  an  absolute  man- 
ner according  to  discretion,  as  being  guided  by  infal- 
lible assistance.  It  did  belong  to  them  to  found 
churches,  to  constitute  pastors,  to  settle  orders,  to 
correct  offences,  to  perform  all  such  acts  of  sovereign 
spiritual  power,  in  virtue  of  the  same  divine  assist- 
ance. Now,  such  an  office  was  not  designed  to  con- 
tinue by  derivation,  for  it  containeth  in  it  divers  things 
which  apparently  were  not  communicable,  and  which 
no  man  without  gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy  could 
challenge  to  himself.  Neither  did  the  Jlpostles  pre- 
tend to  communicate  it.  They  did  indeed  appoint 
standing  pastors  and  teachers  in  each  church;  they 
did  assume  fellow-labourers  or  assistants  in  the  work 
of  preaching  and  governance :  but  they  did  not  con- 
stitute Apostles  equal  to  themselves  in  authority,  pri- 
vilege, or  gifts."  And  he  adds  in  a  note,  "The  Apos- 
tles themselves  make  the  apostolate  a  distinct  office 
from  pastors  and  teachers,  which  are  the  standing 
officers  in  the  Church;  Ephes.  iv.  1 1 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  28;" 
and  maintains  as  the  legitimate  conclusion  from  these 
arguments,  that  "  the  apostolic  office  did  expire  with 
their  persons."*  As  Spanheim  then  said  to  the  pope, 

*  Sec  his  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  72-74,  Pope's  Supremacy. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


133 


when  he  represented  himself  as  an  Apostle,  "Let  him 
descend  now  from  the  Capitol, — let  him,  as  did  the 
Apostles,  declare  that  he  has  the  gift  of  tongues  di- 
vinely infused, — let  him  bring  visibly  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  from  heaven, — let  him  work  like  the 
Apostles  such  illustrious  miracles,  and  then  we  shall 
yield  that  he  has  apostolic  authority;"  so  I  would  say 
to  your  bishops,  and  to  all  other  prelates  who  claim 
to  be  Apostles,  let  them  exhibit  such  proofs  of  their 
apostleship  as  these,  and  then,  but  not  till  then,  we 
will  admit  them  to  be  Apostles.  And  till  they  are 
able  to  do  this,  you  must  permit  me  to  maintain  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Barrow,  that  the  apostolate  has  ceased, 
and  to  object  to  your  attempting  to  found  an  argu- 
ment on  any  of  the  powers  which  were  vested  in 
these  extraordinary  and  temporary  ministers  for  simi- 
lar powers  to  any  particular  order  of  ordinary  minis- 
ters, unless  you  can  prove  that  they  exercised  them 
with  ministers  of  that  order  in  their  own  day,  and 
consequently,  that  they  were  not  peculiar  to  the  for- 
mer, or  that  the  latter  are  pointed  out  as  their  succes- 
sors. And  I  am  greatly  mistaken  if  you  will  succeed 
in  accomplishing  what  has  never  yet  been  done,  and 
establish  these  points  in  favour  of  your  bishops. 
I  am,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XI. 

As  presbyteries  can  perform  the  work  of"  discipling  the  nations"  by  preach- 
ing and  baptizing  till  the  end  of  the  world,  and  are  the  highest  order  of 
standing  ministers  mentioned  in  the  .New  Testament,  they  are  entitled 
to  be  considered  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles. — This  acknowledged 
by  Willet. — The  report  that  the  Apostles  divided  the  world  into  different 
parts,  and  that  each  of  them  laboured  in  one  of  them  as  its  bishop,  proved 
to  be  fabulous,  though  repeated  by  Bishop  Gleig. — It  cannot  be  inferred 
from  the  application  of  the  name  Apostles  by  the  fathers  to  some  of  the 
bishops  that  the  latter  succeed  the  Apostles,  for  they  give  it  also  to  pres- 
byters, and  even  females. — Refutation  of  the  argument  for  Episcopacy 
from  the  appointment  of  James  to  the  Bishopric  of  Jerusalem. — Quota- 
tions from  spurious  writings  of  the  fathers,  in  support  of  this  fiction,  by 
Bishop  Gleig  and  the  present  Curate  of  Derry,  exposed. 


Reverend  Sir, — There  is  none  of  the  statements  of 
Presbyterian  writers  which  has  called  forth  more  keen 


134 


LETTERS  ON 


or  pointed  animadversion  on  the  part  of  Episcopalians, 
than  that  which  relates  to  the  temporary  duration 
of  the  office  of  the  Apostles.  "Where,"  it  was 
asked  by  the  late  Bishop  Gleig,  "is  this  piece  of 
information  to  be  received?  Not  surely  from  Scrip- 
ture, for  our  Saviour,  when  he  gave  authority  to  the 
eleven  to  convert  and  baptize  the  nations,  expressly 
declared  that  he  would  be  ivith  them  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world.  As  he  knew  all  things, 
no  man  professing  to  believe  the  Gospel  will  presume 
to  say,  that  he  supposed  the  lives  of  the  eleven  and 
the  duration  of  the  world  of  equal  extent.  We  must 
therefore  conclude  that  when  he  said  he  would  be 
with  them,  he  meant  with  all  who  unto  the  end  of 
the  world  should  hold  the  commission  which  he  now 
gave  them."*  But  admitting  that  it  was  with  their 
successors,  and  not  with  themselves,  that  the  Saviour 
was  to  be  present  till  the  end  of  the  world,  it  remains 
to  be  proved  that  their  successors  were  to  be  Apostles. 
Now  this  the  bishop  never  attempted  to  prove,  nor 
has  any  thing  like  argument  been  produced  in  sup- 
port of  it  by  any  Episcopalian.  I  have  never  heard 
whether  he  considered  himself  as  an  Apostle;  but  of 
this  I  am  certain,  that  neither  he,  nor  any  of  his 
brethren,  nor  any  other  bishop  for  many  hundreds  of 
years,  has  seen  the  Saviour  since  he  ascended  to 
heaven,  nor  possessed  the  other  qualifications  for  the 
apostleship,  nor  could  perform  the  signs  which  are 
mentioned  by  Paul  as  attesting  its  commission ;  and 
consequently  whoever  are  the  successors  of  these 
early  ministers  till  the  end  of  the  world,  it  cannot  be 
Apostles,  or  the  Scriptures  must  mislead  us.  Besides, 
the  work  which  was  committed  to  them  by  their  Mas- 
ter, when  he  gave  this  promise,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20, 
was  that  of  "  discipling  the  nations,"  by  preaching 
the  word,  and  admitting  them  into  the  Church  by 
baptism;  and  though  it  was  begun  by  Apostles, 
who  had  extraordinary  gifts  and  miraculous  powers, 
it  has  been  proved  by  fact,  that  it  was  to  be  carried 

*  Review  of  Dr.  Campbell's  Lectures  in  the  Anti-Jacobin,  vol.  9. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


135 


on  afterwards  by  ministers  possessed  of  very  differ- 
ent qualifications,  and  furnished  merely  with  ordi- 
nary gifts,  till  the  end  of  the  world.  Who  these 
ministers  are  that  were  to  succeed  them,  cannot  be 
discovered  from  this  passage,  and  must  be  ascer- 
tained from  other  parts  of  Scripture.  If  you  are 
able  to  produce  satisfactory  evidence  for  the  insti- 
tution of  the  order  of  diocesan  bishops,  and  a  distinct 
account  of  their  powers,  (which  has  never  yet  been 
done,)  you  will  be  entitled  to  include  them  among 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  but  not  to  represent 
them  as  Apostles.  And  if  it  appear,  on  the  contrary, 
that  presbyters  are  the  highest  order  of  ministers  re- 
cognised in  the  New  Testament  after  Apostles,  Pro- 
phets and  Evangelists,  and  that  they  have  power  from 
their  office  to  preach  and  baptize,  and  thus  convert 
the  nations,  I  claim  for  them  the  honour  of  being  the 
successors  of  these  distinguished  early  ministers.  Nor 
in  asserting  this  claim  do  I  use  stronger  language  than 
that  which  has  been  employed  by  some  of  the  bright- 
est ornaments  of  your  Church  in  former  times.  I 
might  appeal  to  others,  but  I  shall  refer  only  to  Wil- 
let.  After  remarking  that  "  all  faithful  and  godly 
pastors  and  ministers  are  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles," he  thus  proceeds:  "In  respect  of  their  extraor- 
dinary calling,  miraculous  gifts  and  apostleship,  the 
Apostles  properly  have  no  successors,  as  Master  Ben- 
bridge,  martyr,  saith,  that  he  believed  not  bishops  to 
be  the  successors  of  the  Jlpostles,  for  that  they  bee  not 
called  as  they  were,  nor  have  that  grace;  Fox, — 
p.  2046,  Art.  6,  That,  therefore,  which  the  Apostles 
were  specially  appointed  unto,  is  the  thing  wherein 
the  Apostles  were  properly  succeeded,  but  that  was 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel;  as  Saint  Paul  saith,  he 
was  sent  to  preach,  not  to  baptize .  1  Cor.  i.  1 7.  The 
promise  of  succession,  we  see,  is  in  the  preaching  of 
the  word,  which  appertained!  as  well  to  other  pastors 
and  ministers  as  unto  bishops,  as  afterwards  shall 
bee  declared.  Again,  seeing  in  the  Apostles'  time, 
episcopus  and  presbyter,  a  bishop  and  priest,  were 
neither  in  name  or  office  distinguished,  as  Master 


136 


LETTERS  ON 


Lambert,  martyr,  (Fox,  p.  1111,)  proveth  by  that 
place  of  Saint  Paul,  Tit.  i.,  where  the  Apostle  calleth 
them  bishops,  v.  7,  whom  before,  v.  5,  he  had  named 
presbyters,  priests,  or  elders.  To  this  agreeth  the 
Councell  Aquisgranens,  cap.  8,  collecting  thus  out  of 
this  place,  Paulus  Apostolus,  &c.  Paul  the  Apostle 
doth  affirme  the  elders  or  presbyters  to  be  true  priests 
or  pastors  under  the  name  of  bishops.  It  followeth 
then,  that  either  the  Apostles  assigned  no  succession 
while  they  lived,  neither  appointed  their  successors, 
or  that  indifferently  all  faithful  pastors  and  preach- 
ers of  the  apostolike  faith  are  the  Jipostles'  succes- 
sors.'''* Nay,  the  Church  of  England  recognises 
presbyters  in  this  character,  for  she  appoints  this 
passage  (Mat.  xxviii.  20,)  to  be  read  to  them  at  their 
ordination;  and  the  same  is  the  language  not  only  of 
Irenaeus  and  Jerome,  but  even  of  Ignatius,  to  whose 
opinion  you  are  accustomed  to  attach  such  weight; 
for  if  any  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  genuineness 
of  his  Epistles,  it  is  presbyters,  and  not  diocesan 
bishops,  (if  there  were  any  such  ministers  in  his  day,) 
whom  he  represents  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
Thus,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians  he  speaks  of 
the  "bishop,  (who  he  was  I  shall  afterwards  inquire,) 
as  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,  and  the  presbyters 
in  the  place  of  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Apostles,  ■t^v 

rt^saj3vti^ujv  tij  -tottov  <5ui>f5gtov  -t<~v  artoato\uv.,,     And  ill 

his  Epistle  to  the  Trallians  he  denominates  them  "the 
Sanhedrim  of  God,  and  the  owSie^o*  of  the  Apostles." 
While  I  maintain,  then,  that  the  office  of  the  Apostles 
has  ceased,  I  contend  that  their  successors  are  ordi- 
nary ministers,  denominated  presbyters  or  pastors  and 
teachers,  who  are  the  highest  order  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  who  are  completely  equal  to 
the  performance  of  the  work  of  preaching  and  bap- 
tizing, in  which  they  were  to  have  successors,  and 
that  with  them  the  Saviour  has  promised  to  be  pre- 
sent till  the  end  of  the  world. 

It  has  been  mentioned  in  these  letters  as  one  of  the 
circumstances  which  distinguished  the  Apostles  from 

*  Synopsis,  p.  269. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


137 


diocesan  prelates,  and  which  proves  that  their  office 
is  extinct,  that  while  the  latter  are  restricted  to  a  par- 
ticular district,  and  cannot  go  beyond  it,  the  former 
were  bishops  of  the  world.  But  this  is  contradicted 
by  Bishop  Gleig,  who  observes  after  Downam,"  "not 
to  insist  on  the  reports  of  antiquity,  that  they  divided 
the  earth  among  them;  it  will  be  sufficient  on  this 
occasion  to  appeal  to  St.  Paul, whose  testimony,  when 
direct,  the  greatest  zealot  for  novel  opinions  will  hardly 
dare  to  controvert.  Now,  this  Apostle  assures  us,  Ro- 
mans xv.  20,  that  he  strove  to  preach  the  Gospel  not 
where  Christ  was  named,  lest  he  should  build  on  an- 
other man's  foundation;  and  as  he  quotes  the  author- 
ity of  Isaiah  for  his  conduct,  it  is  not  possible  that  the 
other  Apostles  conducted  themselves  differently."t 
But  before  the  Bishop  had  retailed  the  fable  about 
the  division  of  the  earth  among  the  Apostles,  or 
founded  upon  it,  he  ought  to  have  considered  whether 
he  could  reply  to  what  had  been  said  about  it  by 
Still ingfleet.  "  As  for  the  division  of  provinces  among 
the  Apostles,"  says  the  latter,  after  a  long  train  of 
most  convincing  reasoning,  "  mentioned  in  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  though  as  to  some  few  they  generally 
agree,  as  that  Thomas  went  to  Parthia,  and  Andrew 
to  Scythia,  John  to  the  Lesser  Asia,  &c.  yet  as  to  the 
most,  they  are  at  a  losse  where  to  find  their  provin- 
ses,  and  contradict  one  another  in  reference  to  them, 
and  many  of  them  seem  to  have  their  first  original 
from  the  fable  of  Dorotheus,  Nicephorus,  and  such 
writers.''^  And  said  Ernesti  in  his  MS.  Lectures, 
"  There  is  an  opinion  that  the  Apostles  agreed  among 
themselves  to  divide  the  earth  into  twelve  parts,  and 
to  assign  one  to  each  Apostle;  but  it  is  fabulous,  and 
savours  of  the  traditions  of  the  Jews,  who  report  that 
Noah  divided  the  earth  into  three  parts,  and  distribu- 
ted them  to  his  sons  by  lot.  Our  author  (one  on  whom 
he  was  commenting,)  appeals  in  support  of  it  to  the 
Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eusebius.   Can  any  one  sup- 

*  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  book  iv.  p.  52. 

t  Anti-Jacobin  Review,  vol.  ix. ;  Critique  on  Campbell's  Lectures, 
t  Ircnicum,  p.  237. 


138 


LETTERS  ON 


pose  that  Eusebius  delivers  this?  But  he  produces  a 
passage  from  the  Commentaries  of  Origen  upon  Gene- 
sis. If  men,  however,  would  explain  it  aright,  no 
such  fiction  could  be  deduced  from  it.  He  says  there, 
*a£a8offi{  t^ft,  i.  e.  the  ancients  give  out,  or  there  is  a 
report.  Now,  the  term  *a£aooeii{  is  employed  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  particularly  by  Paul,  as  denoting  what  is 
taught  or  recorded;  and  part  accordingly  of  the  naga- 
Soais  is  taken  from  Scripture;  for  the  account  of  the 
place  where  Peter  laboured  is  borrowed  from  the  in- 
scription of  his  first  Epistle,  the  account  of  the  labours 
of  Paul  from  his  writings,  the  account  of  the  minis- 
tration of  John  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  the  rest  from  uncertain  and  uninspired 
productions.  Besides  the  word  nxixtvai.  has  been 
rendered,  'they  divided  by  lot,'  but  not  very  correctly, 
for  it  means  often  what  is  assigned  to  us  by  Provi- 
dence; and  if  so  translated  in  this  passage,  it  would 
signify  merely,  that  they  had  received  as  their  tot 
the  different  places  which  ivere  the  scenes  of  their 
labours,  or,  in  other  words,  were  led  by  Providence 
to  preach  in  I  hem,  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel. 
From  this  misinterpretation,  accordingly,  has  arisen  the 
whole  of  this  fiction;  and  yet  nothing  can  be  more 
groundless,  for  Paul  taught  in  the  Lesser  Asia,  in 
Greece,  in  Thrace,  and  in  Italy,  and  of  course  could 
not  have  been  restricted  to  any  particular  place. 
Very  similar  to  this  is  another  opinion,  which  main- 
tains that  each  of  the  Apostles  was  confined  to  a 
certain  place,  and  which  is  not  only  without  any  foun- 
dation in  Scripture,  but  contrary  to  the  notion  of  an 
Apostle,  who  was  a  universal  pastor,  while  a  bishop 
was  the  minister  only  of  a  particular  place.  This  last 
opinion  is  pretended  to  be  drawn  from  a  passage  in 
Paul,  where  he  calls  the  Churches  which  he  had 
founded  his  xavw,  2  Cor.  x.  ;*  and  says  that  some  had 
gone  beyond  their  own  xavtuvj  and  encroached  upon 
his,  i.  e.  when  he  founded  a  Church  during  any  of  his 
journeys,  he  was  unwilling  that  it  should  be  claimed 

*  Rendered  by  our  translators  "  measure." 
f  "  Measure." 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


139 


by  another,  for  such  is  the  import  of  his  words,  v.  15, 
not  boasting  of  things  without  our  measure,  that  is, 
of  other  men's  labours.  This  xav^v,  therefore,  could 
not  be  any  particular  portion  assigned  to  Paul,  but 
the  Churches  of  which  he  had  laid  the  foundation  in 
his  journey  from  Asia  to  Europe,  and  the  honour  of 
founding  which  he  would  not  allow  should  be  arro- 
gated by  another."* 

I  would  only  add  farther,  that  Paul  informs  us, 
Rom.  i.  5,  that  "  he  had  received  grace  and  apostle- 
ship  for  obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  nations,  for 
the  name  of  Christ."  And  if  this  was  the  end  for 
which  he  had  been  invested  with  his  office,  can  any 
one  believe  that  he  would  restrict  himself  to  the  super- 
intendence of  a  particular  district,  so  as  that  he  could 
neither  preach  nor  exercise  jurisdiction  beyond  it? 
Besides,  though  he  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  he 
often  preached  to  the  Jews,  and  addressed  to  the  Chris- 
tians from  that  nation  in  every  quarter  of  the  world 
one  of  his  Epistles.  And,  in  like  manner,  Peter, 
though  he  was  the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  was 
the  first  of  the  Apostles  who  preached  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  must  frequently  afterwards,  if  he  visited  Rome,  as 
Papists  assert,  have  ministered  to  their  churches. 
And  as  to  the  remark  of  Paul,  that  "  from  Jerusalem 
and  round  about  Illyricum  he  had  fully  preached  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  yea,  and  had  so  strived  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  not  where  Christ  was  named,  lest  he 
should  build  on  another  man's  foundation,"  it  is  not 
in  the  least  inconsistent  with  his  officiating  as  an  Apos- 
tle in  every  quarter  of  the  world  which  it  was  in  his 
power  to  visit.  It  is  obvious  from  the  facts  which  have 
been  just  now  mentioned,  and  from  his  addressing  an 
Epistle  to  the  Christians  at  Rome,  though  he  had  never 
seen  them,  that  an  Apostle  might  both  preach  the  Gos- 
pel and  write  Epistles  to  Churches  which  had  been 
collected  hyjothers.  And  his  preaching  at  Rome,  after 
he  arrived  at  that  city,  as  well  as  in  other  Christian 
Churches  which  had  been  previously  formed,  clearly 

*  "Opinio  est  Apostolos  inter  se  consensissc  de  partiendo  inter  se 
orbe  terrarum,"  &c. 


140 


LETTERS  ON 


demonstrates  that  it  was  not  from  any  division  of 
provinces  which  had  taken  place  among  the  Apostles, 
but  from  some  other  reason,  such  as  that  it  was  more 
especially  the  business  of  an  Apostle  to  plant  than  to 
water  Churches;  and,  according  to  the  prediction  of 
Isaiah,  quoted  by  Bishop  Gleig,  to  spread  the  Gospel 
as  extensively  and  rapidly  as  he  could,  that  he  refrain- 
ed usually  "  from  building  on  another  man's  founda- 
tion." 

It  is  asserted  by  the  Bishop  and  others  of  your  de- 
fenders, that  the  apostleship  could  not  be  peculiar  to 
the  twelve  and  to  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  because 
"the  words  of  Paul,  Gal.  i.  1,  inform  us,  as  clearly  as 
language  can  express  any  thing,  that  when  he  wrote 
his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  there  were  in  the  Church 
Apostles  who  had  been  ordained  to  their  office,  6v  av- 
6£u,7tov,  by  the  ministry  of  man.  Such  we  think,  was 
Barnabas,  who,  though  he  had  been  employed  in  the 
work  of  the  ministry  before  St.  Paul  himself,  is  never 
styled  an  Apostle  till  after  hands  were  laid  upon  him 
at  Antioch,  by  the  immediate  direction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Such  certainly  was  Epaphroditus,  whom  St. 
Paul  styles  the  Apostle  of  the  Philippians,  and  who, 
according  to  the  Doctor's  man  of  discernment,  Hilary 
the  deacon,  was  constituted  their  Apostle  by  St.  Paul 
himself,'  who  therefore  commands  them  '  to  receive 
him  in  the  Lord,  and  to  hold  him  in  reputation.'  Such 
likewise  were  those  brethren  who  were  styled,  (2  Cor. 
viii.  23,)  arfofoxoi  exx\rtaiuv,  5o|at  x^tjov,  Apostles  of  the 
Churches,  the  glory  of  Christ.  And  such  undoubtedly 
were  Timothy,  Titus,  Sosthenes,  and  Silvanus,  whom 
Paul  so  frequently  associates  with  himself  as  his 
partners,  fellow-helpers  and  brethren;  and  to  the 
two  first  of  whom  he  assigns  such  offices  at  Ephesus 
and  Crete,  as,  by  the  confessions  of  all  parties,  evince 
them  to  have  been  of  an  order  superior  to  presbyters. 
Hence  it  is  that  we  read  of  false  Apostles,  (2  Cor.  xi. 
13,)  and  of  some  who  said  they  were  Apostles,  and 
were  not,  but  v/ere  found  liars,  (Rev.  ii.  2 ;)  for  as 

*  The  words  of  Hilary  are,  "Erat  enim  eorum  Apostolus  ab  Apos- 

tolo  factus." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


141 


none  of  those  liars,  could  possibly  pretend  to  be  St. 
Paul,  or  any  of  the  twelve,  all  of  whom  were  dead 
before  that  period,  we  must  of  necessity  infer  that 
they  practised  their  imposition  upon  their  knowledge, 
that  there  were  then  in  the  Church  many  true  Apos- 
tles, the  Apostles  8i'  ave^uttov,  or  by  the  ordination  of 
man."t 

Now,  I  would  remark  upon  this  passage,  that  as  it 
does  not  contain  the  slightest  proof  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  individuals  to  whom  it  refers  were  denomi- 
nated Apostles  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  or 
that  any  one  of  them  is  so  designated  who  had  not 
seen  the  Lord  after  his  resurrection,  and  who  could 
not  exhibit  the  signs  of  an  Apostle  by  working  mira- 
cles, it  will  not  warrant  the  conclusion,  that  others 
who  wanted  the  qualifications  for  the  apostleship, 
which  were  before  mentioned,  were  elevated  to  that 
high  office,  and  were  appointed  to  be  the  fellow- 
labourers  and  successors  of  the  Apostles.  Calderwood 
imagines  that  an  exception  as  to  the  name  ought  to 
be  made  in  regard  to  Barnabas;  for  he  observes,  "In 
what  manner  he  was  called  to  the  apostleship  does 
not  appear,  and  yet  that  he  was  an  Apostle,  and  of 
the  same  rank  with  Paul,  is  evident  from  many  cir- 
cumstances. He  is  denominated  an  Apostle,  without 
any  limitation  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  Acts  xiv. 
4-14;  and  was  sent  to  the  Gentiles,  with  the  same 
authority  with  Paul ;  Acts  xiii.  Others  were  in  their 
company,  and  yet  Barnabas  is  mentioned  always  as 
the  equal  of  Paul,  and  not  merely  as  an  assistant. 
The  inhabitants  of  Lystra  considered  Barnabas  as 
Jupiter,  Acts  xiv.  12,  and  Paul  as  Mercury.  He  is 
always  distinguished  from  the  other  companions  of 
Paul,  both  during  their  journey  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  when  they  went  up  to  the  Council  at  Jerusalem. 
And  the  controversy  which  took  place  between  them, 
so  as  that  they  were  obliged  to  separate,  as  well  as 
the  power  of  choosing  as  his  assistant  John,  whose 
surname  was  Mark,  which  was  exercised  by  Barna- 
bas, proves  that  he  was  an  Apostle,  and  not  an  Evan- 


*  Anti-Jacobin  Review,  vol.  ix. 


142 


LETTERS  ON 


gelist."*  But  if  he  was  really  an  Apostle,  there  is 
reason  to  believe,  that  as  he  was  one  of  the  seventy 
disciples,  as  is  acknowledged  by  Cavet  and  other  Epis- 
copalians, he  would  see  the  Redeemer  after  his  resur- 
rection. And  we  know  that  he  performed  miracles; 
Acts  xiv.  1-4,  14.  As  to  the  case  of  Epaphroditus,  it 
is  plain,  not  only  from  our  own  and  other  translations, 
but  from  what  is  acknowledged  both  by  Whitby  and 
Willet,  that  he  is  denominated  artojcaoj,  because  he  was 
the  "  messenger"  who  carried  the  contributions  of  the 
Philippians  to  Paul.  "  Concerning  the  instance  of 
Epaphrodilus,"  says  the  latter,  "  he  is  called  their 
Apostle,  i.  e.  messenger,  because  he  brought  the  be- 
nevolence of  that  church  unto  Saint  Paul ;  Phil.  iv.  18. 
And  so  this  word  J/postle  is  taken  both  in  the  civill 
and  canon  law,  in  so  much  that  letters  dimissorie, 

*  "  Barnabas  quo  modo  vocatus  fuerat  rton  constat.  Extra  ordinem 
tamen  in  Apostolorum  numerum  co-optatus  est."  Altare  Damasce- 
num,  p.  157. 

tUistoria  Literaria,  p.  11.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  his  Stro- 
mata,  lib.  ii.  p.  300,  makes  the  same  statement ;  "  o  Si  tmv  ifi&ofjMx.ovta. 
m  mi  truvt^yo;  rcu  Tla.u\Qv."  And  in  p.  273,  274,  he  called  him  an 
Apostle,  "  A7T05-T&A05  Bagva/Sac." 

It  deserves,  however,  to  be  mentioned,  that  Calvin,  in  his  Com- 
mentary  on  Acts  xiii.  4,  says,  "  Quum  Lucas  Barnabam  Apostolum 
cum  Paulo  vocat  nominis  significationem  longius  extcndit  quam  ad 
primarium  ordinem  quern  instituit  Christus  in  sua  Ecclesia  :  qualiter 
Paulus  Andronicum  etJuniam  inter  Apostolos  insignes  facit.  Proprie 
autem  loquendo  evangelistae  erant,"  i.  e.  the  name  of  the  Apostle  is 
given  to  him  in  a  more  extended  sense  than  when  it  is  applied  to  the 
twelve  and  Paul.  He  adds,  indeed,  "  Nisi  forte  quia  Paulo  additus 
erat  collega  Barnabas,  utrumque  in  pari  officii  gradu  statuimus:  ita 
Apostoli  titulus  vere  in  ipsum  competet,"  i.  e.  unless,  as  he  was  added 
as  a  colleague  to  Paul,  we  assign  to  him  the  same  rank,  in  which 
case  he  may  receive  the  name  of  an  Apostle.  Gersom  Bucer,  how- 
ever, very  properly  observes,  (Dissert,  de  Gubern.  Eccles.,  p.  480,) 
that  the  latter  remark  must  be  taken  in  a  restricted  sense,  for,  says 
he,  "Calvinus  loquitur  de  ilia  legatione  quam  Paulus  interveniente 
Ecclesiae  Antiochenae  judicio  ac  moderamine  cum  Barnaba  pera- 
gendam  susceperat,  non  de  tola  Apostolatns  functione,  ad  quam  im- 
mcdiata  prorsus  auctoritate  Christi  e  coelo  consilium  suum  expro- 
mentis  segregatus  fuerat."  If  Barnabas  then  was  an  Apostle,  in  the 
sense  in  which  Calderwood  understands  the  term,  it  is  plain,  from 
what  is  stated  in  the  text,  that  he  had  some  of  the  principal  qualifi- 
cations for  that  office.  But  if  he  was  called  by  that  name,  as  I  am 
disposed  to  think,  merely  because  he  was  sent  on  the  same  long  and 
important  mission  with  Paul,  then  he  was  not  an  Apostle  in  the 
highest  sense  of  the  word,  but  only  an  Evangelist. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


143 


granted  in  the  cause  of  appeale,  by  him  from  whom 
the  appeale  is  made,  are  called  (apostoli,)  letters  of 
dismissing  or  sending  the  cause  to  him  to  whom  the 
appeale  is  made;  Decrett.  p.  2,  Cause  2,  Quaest.  6, 
cap.  24,  sext.  decret.  lib.  2."*  And  says  the  former, 
"  it  is  noted  by  Theodoret  and  others  of  the  fathers, 
that  Epaphroditus,  mentioned  in  this  Epistle  (that  to 
the  Philippians)  as  their  messenger,  ch.  ii.  15,  iv.  18, 
was  also  their  bishop ;  though,  I  confess,  the  words,  tov 
dKosoxov  vpav,  your  Apostle,  do  not  prove  it."t  And 
while  it  is  evident  to  any  one  who  peruses  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  that  the  brethren  referred 
to  by  Paul,  ch.  viii.  23,  are  represented  as  anoatoxoi, 
as  our  translators  were  satisfied,  merely  because  they 
were  messengers ;%  so  if  we  are  to  infer  that  there 

*  Synopsis  Papismi,  p.  274. 

t  Preface  to  his  Commentary  upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

t  Jeremy  Taylor,  1  am  aware,  maintains  the  contrary  in  his  Asser- 
tion of  Episcopacy,  p.  19,  and  observes  in  proof  of  it,  "  They  are  not 
called  the  Apostles  of  these  Churches,  to  witt,  whose  almes  they  car- 
ried, but  simply  t*.nKr,vim  of  the  Churches,  viz.  of  their  own,  of  which 
they  were  bishops.  For  if  the  title  of  Apostle  had  related  to  their 
mission  from  these  Churches,  it  is  unimaginable  that  there  should  be 
no  terme  of  relation  expressed."  But  how  could  it  be  necessary  to 
distinguish  them  in  that  way,  when  it  is  said  of  one  of  them,  v.  19, 
that  he  had  been  chosen  of  the  Churches  to  travel  with  Paul  and  his 
companions  with  the  grace  or  contribution  which  was  "administered 
by  the  Apostle  to  the  glory  of  the  same  Lord,  and  the  declaration  of 
their  ready  mind?"  And  as  there  is  no  term  of  relation  coupled  with 
vuixxtTim,  if  we  are  not  guided  by  what  is  there  mentioned,  must  not 
this  writer's  latter  remark  strike  equally  against  his  own  interpreta- 
tion ?  'idly,  He  says,  "  It  is  very  cleare,  that  although  they  did  in- 
deed carry  the  benevolence  of  the  severall  Churches,  yet  St.  Paul,  not 
these  Churches,  sent  them.  And  we  have  sent  with  them  our  bro- 
ther." &c.  But  how  this  is  clear  it  is  difficult  to  perceive,  since  it  is 
stated  in  that  verse  that  these  Churches  had  actually  "  chosen  hint  and 
sent  him."  And  certainly,  if  he  was  selected  for  that  purpose  by  these 
Churches,  nothing  can  be  more  natural,  than  that,  according  to  the 
import  of  the  word  which  was  adopted  by  our  translators,  though 
they  were  zealous  Episcopalians,  he  should  be  denominated,  on 
that  account,  their  messenger  or  amo-Tn^c;.  And  3dly,  he  remarks, 
"  They  are  called  Apostles  of  the  Churches,  not  going  from  Corinth 
with  the  money,  but  before  they  came  thither,  from  whence  they  were 
to  be  dispacht  in  legation  to  Jerusalem.  [If  any  enquire  ofTitus  or 
the  brethren,  they  are  the  Apostles  of  the  Churches,  and  the  glory  of 
Christ.]"  But  as  other  Churches  besides  that  of  Corinth  were  send- 
ing to  the  relief  of  the  saints  at  Jerusalem,  and  as  these  brethren  had 
been  appointed  by  them  to  carry  their  contributions  before  they  came 


144 


LETTERS  ON 


were  more  Apostles  than  twelve  with  Barnabas  and 
Paul,  because  there  were  some  in  the  end  of  the  first 
century  "  who  said  that  they  were  Apostles,  but  were 
not,"  it  will  follow  upon  the  same  principle,  that  there 
must  have  been  more  Messiahs  than  one,  because  our 
Saviour  foretold,  that  after  he  left  the  world,  "  there 
should  arise  false  Christs  and  false  prophets."  Nor 
will  it  avail  to  tell  us  that  Epaphroditus  and  these 
brethren  are  represented  by  the  fathers  as  apostles 
and  bishops,  for  they  appeal  in  support  of  it  to  Scrip- 
ture, where  no  such  statements  are  to  be  met  with. 
And  when  we  consider  that  even  Barnabas  discovers 
in  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  male  servants  who 
were  circumcised  by  Abraham,  a  prediction  that  the 
Saviour  was  to  die  upon  a  cross,*  that  Irenaeus  affirms 

to  Corinth,  they  might  very  properly  be  represented  as  their  messen- 
gers or  oawreXM,  before  they  either  arrived  at  that  place,  or  left  it  for 
Jerusalem. 

It  is  stated  in  short,  by  Downam,  in  his  Defence  of  his  Sermon, 
book  iv.  p.  70,  that  "  Apostoli,  used  absolutely,  is  a  title  of  all  cmbas- 
sadours  sent  from  God,  with  authority  apostolicall,  though,  x*t'  sJ^jtv, 
(by  way  of  eminence,)  given  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  the  twelve 
Apostles."  And  he  farther  maintains,  that  though  when  used  abso- 
lutely, it  is  a  title  of  all  such  "  embassadours — yet,  when  used  with 
reference  to  particular  churches,  it  doth  signifie  their  bishops.  And 
in  that  sence,  Epaphroditus  is  called  the  Apostle  of  the  Philippians." 
But  this  distinction  will  not  hold,  for  Paul  reminds  the  Corinthians, 
(1  Cor.  ix.  2,)  though  he  had  the  title  of  the  Apostle,  according  to  this 
author,  «t'  ^>Xni  "that  if  he  was  not  an  Apostle  unto  others,  yet 
doubtless  he  was  to  them,"  which,  according  to  this  observation,  would 
reduce  him  to  be  merely  the  Bishop  of  Corinth.  See,  too,  Causabon, 
E.tercit.  14,  p.  313. 

*  "  Learn  all  things  more  fully,"  says  he  in  his  Epistle.  "  Abraham, 
who  first  practised  circumcision,  looking  forward  through  the  Spirit 
to  the  Son  of  God,  performed  this  rite,  receiving  the  mysterious  infor- 
mation from  three  letters.  For  it  says  that  Abraham  circumcised  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  men  of  his  house.  What,  then,  was  the  in- 
struction which  was  imparted  to  him  by  this'  Observe  first,  the 
eighteen,  and  then  the  three  hundred.  The  eighteen  are  denoted  by 
ix,  which  point  out  Jesus.  And  because  the  cross  by  which  we  were 
to  obtain  grace  resembles  T,  which  marks  three  hundred,  therefore 
he  adds  three  hundred.  Bu  tico  letters,  thenfore  he  denotes  Jesus,  and 
by  the  third  his  cross.  He  who  has  implanted  within  us  the  engraf- 
ted gift  of  his  doctrine  knows  that  no  one  has  ever  learned  from  me  a 
more  certain  truth,  but  ye  are  worthy  to  receive  it.  Ma'srs  st/r  ratva, 
i-i^i  7r%iT<ft"  &,c  ;  p.  29,  of  Cotelerius's  Aposlolici  Patres.  How  un- 
fortunate that  Barnabas  did  not  recollect  that  Abraham  could  not 
speak  Greek.'    And  how  unaccountable  that  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


145 


that  the  spies  who  were  concealed  by  Rahab,  were 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,*  and  that  Origen 
interprets  Balaam's  ass,  on  Which  first  the  soothsayer 
rode,  and  afterwards  Christ,  as  denoting  the  Church; 
the  five  kings  of  Canaan  who  were  overcome  by 
Joshua  as  the  five  senses,  and  the  ten  plagues  of 
Egypt  as  the  ten  commandments,  we  will  not  feel 
surprised  at  their  finding  apostles  and  bishops  in 
many  parts  of  Scripture  where  no  one  else  can  dis- 
cover them.t  Nay,  so  vaguely  is  this  term  employed 
by  the  fathers,  that  they  apply  it  indiscriminately  to 
the  first  disciples  of  the  Saviour4  to  presbyters,§  and 

and  others  of  the  fathers  who  are  cited  by  Cotelerius  in  his  notes  on 
this  passage,  should  have  fallen  into  the  same  absurdity. 

*  "  But  she  received,"  says  he,  "the  spies  who  were  exploring  the 
whole  land,  and  hid  them  with  her,  namely,  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Suscepit  auteiu  speculatorcs,"  &.c.  Lib.  4,  cap. 
37,  p.  268,  de  Haercsibus. 

f  "  And  perhaps,"  says  lie,  "this  ass,  that  is,  the  Church,  first 
carried  Baalam,  but  now  Christ.  Et  forte  haec  asina,  id  est  Eccle- 
sia,"  &c.    13th  Homily  on  Numbers,  torn.  i.  p.  249. 

"  The  five  kings  signify  the  five  bodily  senses,  sight,  hearing,  taste, 
touch  and  smell.  Quinquc  autcm  reges,"  &c.  11th  Homily  upon 
Joshua,  torn.  i.  p.  346. 

Consult  moreover  his  account  of  the  little  ones  of  the  daughter  of 
Zion,  in  Psalm  exxxvii.  9.  Treatise  against  Celsus,  lib.  7,  p.  731,  of 
the  2d  vol.  of  his  works. 

Are  these  the  men  whose  opinions  we  arc  to  value  so  highly,  and 
from  whom  according  to  Dr.  Pusey,  Mr.  Newman,  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, we  are  to  learn  the  doctrine,  or  government,  or  worship  of  the 
Christian  Church? 

t  "  The  word  Apostle,"  says  Valesius,  upon  a  passage  in  Euse- 
bius's  Ecclcs.  Hist.,  lib.  i.  cap.  13,  p.  33,  where  it  is  applied  to  one  of 
the  seventy  disciples,  "  must  be  understood  with  greater  latitude,  in 
like  manner,  as  particular  nations  and  cities  called  those  persons 
Apostles  from  whom  they  first  received  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  For 
it  is  not  bestowed  merely  upon  the  twelve,  but  all  their  disciples, 
companions  and  assistants  are  in  general  denominated  Apostles.  Sed 
Apostoli  nomcn  his  latius  sumitur,"  &c.  The  whole  of  this  long 
note  is  worthy  of  attention.    See  also  Jerome  on  Gal.  i.  1,  2. 

§  It  is  observed  by  Blondel  in  his  Apologia  pro  Scntcnt.  Hierony- 
mi,  p.  85,  that  "by  many  of  the  ancients  the  seventy  disciples,"  who 
are  represented  as  presbyters  by  Bishop  Gleig  and  other  Episcopa- 
lians, "  are  denominated  Apostles,  and  that  the  secen  deacons  are 
distinguished  by  that  name  by  Caesarcus  Monachus;"  Dial.  iv.  resp. 
292.  Consult  especially  Theodorct  upon  1  Cor.  xii. ;  and  says  Origen, 
in  his  twenty-seventh  Homily  upon  Numbers,  torn.  i.  p.  312,  "  But 
since  our  Lord  and  Saviour  chose  not  only  the  twelve,  but  other 


10 


146 


LETTERS  ON 


to  females,  such  as  the  woman  of  Samaria,  Thecla, 
and  many  others,*  whom  you  will  scarcely  acknow- 
ledge as  diocesan  bishops,  and  yet,  as  far  as  we  are 
influenced  by  their  opinion,  all  of  them  were  Apos- 
tles. 

It  is  contended,  however,  by  Hooker,t  that  the 
Apostles  must  have  been  bishops,  because  the  office 
of  Judas,  which  was  conferred  upon  Matthias,  is  de- 
nominated in  our  translation  of  Acts,  i.  20,  "  a  bish- 
opric," or,  as  it  is  expressed  by  Bilson,^  "a  bishop- 
ship."  But  even  admitting  this  version,  which  was 
the  basis  of  a  similar  argument  to  the  Papist  Furbiti, 
when  he  defended  Episcopacy  against  Farel  before 
the  Council  of  Geneva,  it  will  not  authorize  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Apostles  were  diocesan  bishops,  or 
that  the  latter  are  Apostles  and  their  successors. 
Bishops  and  presbyters,  as  is  conceded  by  Downam, 
were  for  a  considerable  time  convertible  expressions, § 
and  consequently  the  bishopric  which  is  there  attribu- 
ted to  Judas  would  be  ecpaivalent  only  to  the  presby- 
tera/e.  Or  though  we  should  grant  that  it  was 
superior,  yet  as  the  bishopric  of  the  Apostles  was  uni- 
versal and  peculiar  to  themselves,  it  can  furnish  no 
argument  for  modern  diocesan  Episcopacy.  But 
it  is  far  from  being  evident  that  this  translation  is  cor- 
rect.   The  word  6iaxoiutt  occurs  in  the  17th  verse,  and 

seventy-two,  therefore  we  are  informed  that  there  were  not  only 
twelve  fountains,  but  also  seventy-two  palm  trees;  and  tiny  too  are 
denominated  Apostles,  as  is  plain  from  what  is  mentioned  by  Paul  ; 
for  when  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  he  says  that  he 
appeared  to  the  eleven,  and  attervvards  to  all  the  Apostles;  in  which 
he  shows  that  there  were  others  who  were  Apostles  besides  the 
twelve.    Vcrum  quloniain  non  solum  illoe  duodecim,"  &c. 

*  Chrysostom, 'I  heophylact  and  Oecumenius  think  that  Junia,  who 
is  mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.  7,  was  a  woman,  and  that  she  is  there  call- 
ed an  Apostle.  Theophylact,  upon  John  iv.  denominates  the  Sama- 
ritan woman  awwrstof.  And  in  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of 
Thccla,  (Grabe's  Spicilegium  vol.  i.  p  95,)  she  is  distinguished  by 
that  name.  See,  too,  Fronto  Ducaeus  upon  Chrysostom,  torn.  i.  p. 
90.  Women  are  denominated  in  Scripture,  Rom.  xvi.  3-12,  the  help- 
ers and  fellow-labourers  of  the  Apostles. 

t  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  7,  p.  394. 

t  Perpetuall  Government,  p.  227. 

ij  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  book  iii.  p.  64,  and  book  iv.  p.  1G. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


147 


yet  our  translators  have  not  rendered  it  "deaconship" 
as  they  ought  to  have  done,  on  the  principle  on  which 
they  rendered  the  other  word,  but  "ministry,"  lest 
Matthias  should  have  appeared  to  be  only  a  deacon. 
And  they  were  equally  bound  to  have  rendered 
emaxojttj  "  office"  or  "  ministry,"  and  not  "bishopric," 
though,  from  their  leaning  towards  Episcopacy,  they 
have  adopted  the  latter  term,  with  the  view  of  repre- 
senting the  Apostle  as  a  bishop.  Such  is  the  transla- 
tion of  it  in  the  Syriac,  Ethiopic,  and  one  of  the  Arabic 
versions,  where  it  is  rendered  "  his  ministry,  ministe- 
fium  ejus."  And  such  is  the  version  that  lias  been 
given  even  by  our  translators  of  the  passage  in  the  Book 
of  Psalms,  which  is  quoted  by  Peter,  Actsi.  20;  for  they 
render  the  Hebrew  word  mpB,  to  which  $ TtiaxoTtr;  corres- 
ponds in  the  Septuagint,  Ps.  cix.  8,  by  the  word 
office;  and  yet,  merely  to  serve  an  end,  they  render 
the  latter  term  in  the  Acts  by  the  word  "bishopric."* 
Nay,  they  give  a  similar  version  of  the  very  same 
word  in  Numbers,  iv.  16,  though  the  expression  in 
the  Septuagint  be  tn^axonri.  And  this  version  agrees 
better  with  the  authority  which  was  possessed  by 
Judas,  whose  office,  according  to  Peter,  was  to  be 
transferred  to  Matthias,  for  as  was  demanded  by 
Farel,  "  if  Judas  was  a  bishop  where  was  his  bishop- 
ric?'^ He  was  only  a  presbyter,  according  to  Bishop 
Gleig;  and  according  to  Archbishop  Potter  but  a  dea- 
con; and  nothing,  of  course,  could  be  more  absurd 
than  to  represent  him  as  a  diocesan  bishop.  But  if 
the  term  mt-axonr;  in  the  Acts,  as  in  the  corresponding 
passage  in  the  Psalms,  be  rendered  office,  and  not 
bishopric,  the  argument  of  Hooker,  or  rather  of  Bishop 

*  As  it  was  precisely  the  office  of  Doeg,  or  the  unbeliever,  who  is 
referred  lo  in  Ps.  cix.  8,  that  his  successor  was  to  take,  so  the  same 
tiling  holds  true  as  to  the  office  of  Judas,  which  was  bestowed  on  Mat- 
thias, though  it  might  be  enlarged  in  respect  of  authority  to  the 
latter. 

t  "  Si  Judas  etoit  Eveque,  ou  son  Evcche?"  Ruchat's  Histoire  de 
la  Reformation  de  la  Suisse,  torn.  v.  p.  115.  The  whole  of  his  short 
but  spirited  refutation  of  Episcopacy,  which  took  place  before  the 
Council  of  Geneva,  before  Calvin  was  known  in  that  city,  is  deserving 
of  attention. 


14S 


LETTERS  0J> 


Gauden,  the  author  of  the  three  spurious  books  of  the 
Polity,  necessarily  falls. 

If  it  be  maintained  with  Bilson,  that  whatever  may 
be  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  "  all  the  fathers  with 
one  mouth  affirme  the  Apostles  both  might  bee,  and 
were  bishops,*'*  I  answer  with  Valesius,  that  when 
they  are  so  denominated,  it  is  not  to  be  strictly  under- 
stood.t  Nay,  it  is  observed  by  Whitaker,  that  "  it 
almost  borders  on  insanity,  to  assert  that  Peter,  or 
any  other  of  the  Apostles,  was  properly  a  bishop, 
for  they  possessed  the  very  highest  ecclesiastical  autho- 
rity, and  the  office  of  a  bishop  is  nothing  to  that  of 
an  apostle."±  And  says  Dr.  Barrow,  "  The  office  of 
an  apostle  and  a  bishop  are  not  in  their  nature  well 
consistent :  For  the  apostleship  is  an  extraordinary 
office,  charged  with  the  instruction  and  government 
of  the  whole  world.  Episcopacy  is  an  ordinary  stand- 
ing charge  affixed  to  one  place.  Now,  he  that  hath 
such  a  general  care  can  hardly  discharge  such  a  par- 
ticular office,  and  he  that  is  fixed  to  so  particular  an 
attendance,  can  hardly  look  well  to  so  general  a  charge. 
A  disparagement  to  the  apostolical  ministry  for  him 
(Peter)  to  take  upon  him  the  Bishoprick  of  Rome,  as 
if  the  King  should  become  mayor  of  London — as  if 
the  Bishop  of  London  should  be  vicar  of  Pancrass."§ 
When  the  fathers,  therefore,  speak  of  the  Apostles  as 
bishops,  they  can  mean  merely,  that  wherever  they 
came  they  exercised  the  authority  which  toas  latterly 
assumed  by  bishops,  but  which  belonged  every  where 
to  the  apostolic  office;  and  in  this  sense  of  their  words, 
the  Apostles  might  exercise  that  authority  in  ten, 
twenty,  or  fifty  places,  and  yet  they  hud  not  as  many 
bishoprics.    Nay,  this  authority  might  be  exercised 

*  Pcrpctuall  Government,  p.  226. 

t  11  Tiie  Apostles,"  says  he,  in  his  Notes  on  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Hist, 
book  3,  cap.  14,  "  were  extraordinary  ministers,  and  were  not  reckoned 
in  the  number  of  bishops.    Apostoli  vcro  extra  ordinem  erant,"  &c. 

t  "  Hoc  enim  non  multum  distat  ab  insania  dicere  Petrum  fuisse 
proprie  Episcopum,  aut  reliquos  Apostolos.  Summam  enim  minis- 
terii  authoritatem  habuerunt.  Munus  Episcopi  nihil  est  ad  munus 
Apostolicum."    De  Pontif.,  Quaest  2,  cap.  15. 

§  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  120,  121. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


149 


by  more  than  one  of  them  at  once*  in  the  very  same 
place,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul  and  Peter  at  Rome.t 
And  it  is  an  established  principle  among  Episcopa- 
lians, that  there  cannot  be  more  than  a  single  bishop 
in  one  city.  No  argument,  accordingly,  can  be  drawn 
from  these  expressions  of  the  fathers  to  prove  that  the 
Apostles  were  diocesan  bishops. 

But  it  is  asserted  by  Bishop  Gleig,  and  many  of  the 
Episcopalians  of  former  times,  that  St.  James  at  least 
must  have  been  a  bishop  of  this  description,  because 
"  he  is  expressly  said  by  Hegesippus,  (apud  Euseb. 
lib.  ii.  cap.  23,)  to  have  been  constituted  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Apostles.  St.  Ignatius,  who  suf- 
fered martyrdom  in  the  year  107,  affirms  (Epist.  ad 
Trail.)  that  St.  Stephen  was  deacon  to  St.  James;  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  about  the  year 
192,  is  quoted  by  Eusebius,  (lib.  ii.  cap.  1,)  as  saying, 
that  immediately  after  the  assumption  of  Christ,  Peter, 
James  and  John,  though  they  had  been  highest  in 
favour  with  their  Divine  Master,  did  not  contend  for 
the  honour  of  presiding  over  the  Church  of  Jerusalem, 
but  with  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  chose  James  the  Just 
to  be  bishop  of  that  Church.  In  the  fourth  century 
we  find  Jerome,  a  man  of  great  learning  and  research, 
affirming,  (de  Script.  Eccles.)  that  immediately  after 
the  passion  of  our  Lord,  St.  James  was  constituted 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Apostles;  and  St.  Cyril, 
who  was  himself  bishop  of  that  Church  in  the  year 
350,  and  therefore  an  authentic  witness  of  its  records, 
expressly  says,  Catech.  16,  that  St.  James  was  the 
first  bishop  of  that  city."| 

Now,  upon  this  I  would  remark, 

1.  That  it  is  exceedingly  questionable  whether  he 

*  Bilson,  in  his  Perpetuall  Government,  p.  20G,  affirms,  that  Peter 
was  Bishop,  first  of  Antioch,  and  afterwards  of  Rome,  in  which  he 
is  supported  by  a  number  of  the  fathers;  and  the  author  of  the  Chro- 
nicon  Alcxandrinum,  quoted  by  Cotelcrius  on  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions, lib.  7,  cap.  46,  assigns  to  him  the  see  of  Jerusalem  before  it 
was  committed  to  James.  But  upon  the  principle  stated  above,  he 
and  his  brethren  must  have  had  many  bishoprics. 

t  Eusehii  Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  iii.  cap.  1  ;  lib.  iv.  cap.  1. 

t  Anti-Jacobin,  vol.  9. 


150 


LETTERS  ON 


was  out  of  the  twelve,  or  of  the  seventy  disciples.  We 
are  informed  of  a  James  by  Eusebius,  (Eccles.  Hist, 
book  i.  ch.  12,)  "who  was  one  of  tbe  seventy,  and  of 
the  brethren  of  our  Lord."  And  it  is  observed  by 
Valesius  on  the  place,  that  "  many  of  the  ancients 
were  of  opinion  that  the  James  who  was  the  first 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem  was  not  one  of  the  twelve,  but 
of  the  seventy:  Thus,  Gregory  Nyssene,  in  his  second 
Oration  upon  the  Resurrection  of  Christ;  Clemens,  in 
the  second  Book  of  his  Constitutions,  ch.  59,  and  in 
the  first  Book  of  his  Recognitions,  near  the  end,  p.  20; 
Dorotheus,  in  his  Book  upon  the  Apostles  and  Disci- 
ples of  the  Lord,  and  Michael  Glycas,  in  the  third  part 
of  his  Annals."  And  he  adds,  "  Paul  seems  to  favour 
this  opinion  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  for 
in  his  enumeration  of  those  to  whom  the  Saviour 
appeared  after  he  rose  from  the  dead,  after  mention- 
ing the  twelve  Apostles,  and  five  hundred  others,  he 
subjoins,  afterwards  he  was  seen  by  James  and  the 
other  Apostles.  Paul  therefore  distinguishes  James 
from  the  twelve  Apostles,  and  in  this  sense  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  (Catech.  4  and  14,)  (to  whom  Bishop  Gleig 
ascribes  an  opposite  opinion  erroneously,)  understood 
this  passage  of  St.  Paul."*  But  if  James  was  only 
one  of  the  seventy,  and  consequently  but  a  presbyter, 
it  weakens  exceedingly  the  credibility  of  the  story,  for 
there  are  few,  I  presume,  who  will  believe  that  such 
an  inferior  minister  would  be  raised  to  an  honour, 
which,  according  to  the  third  of  the  authors  quoted 
by  the  Bishop,  was  superior  to  what  was  possessed 
by  the  chief  of  the  Jlpostles. 

But  granting,  even,  that  he  was  an  Apostle,  I  ob- 
serve, in  the  second  place,  that  the  authorities  on 
which  this  report  is  delivered  are  unworthy  of  credit. 

The  first  of  them  is  a  fragment  of  Hegesippus,  which 
has  been  preserved  by  Eusebius,  (Eccles.  Hist,  book 
ii.  chap.  23,)  but  which,  though  often  quoted  by  Epis- 

*  "  Multi  quippe  cx  veteribus  Jacobum  frutrem  Domini,"  &c.  The 
same,  too,  was  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  the  Apo*tolic  Constitutions, 
lib.  6,  cap.  12,  and  lib.  8,  cap.  4,  as  well  as  of  Hammond  and  Bishop 
Taylor. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


151 


copalians,  is  undeserving  of  attention.  It  tells  us, 
indeed,  that  "  he  received  the  government  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  along  with  the  Apostles;"*  but 
adds  at  the  same  time,  that  "  he  alone  could  enter 
into  the  Holy  of  Holies,"  though  he  was  not  the 
high-priest;  "that  he  was  buried  near  the  Temple," 
though  the  Jews  buried  only  without  the  gates  of 
their  cities; — and  that  "his  tomb  was  still  standing  in 
the  second  century,"  though  not  a  stone  of  Jerusalem 
was  left  standing  upon  another  after  it  was  taken  by 
the  Romans.  If  it  blunder,  however,  as  to  these  and 
other  important  particulars  which  are  pointed  out  at 
length  by  Scaligert  and  Valesius,J  it  must  be  as  un- 
worthy of  our  belief  as  to  what  it  says  about  the  for- 
mer, were  it  susceptible  of  the  interpretation  which 
has  been  put  upon  it  by  the  Bishop.  And  if  its  leading 
authority  be  overthrown,  the  others  must  fall  with  it. 

The  second  of  his  quotations  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  editions  of  Ignatius  by  Vossius  or  Usher,  but  only 
in  a  corrupt  edition,  which  every  one  who  is  beyond 
a  sciolist  in  these  matters  knows  to  be  spurious!  But 
how  the  Bishop,  who  has  been  held  out  as  a  man  of 
the  highest  attainments  in  professional  learning,  and 
who  talks  so  contemptuously  of  the  acquirements  of 
his  opponents,  could  have  fallen  into  this  mistake  I 
cannot  understand;  and  can  account  for  it  only  on  the 
supposition,  that  he  copied  it  from  the  works  of  some 
of  the  older  Episcopalians,  from  whom,  in  common 
with  many  of  his  brethren  in  the  present  day,  he  has 
often  copied  his  arguments  without  due  examination 
of  his  authorities,  and  being  unacquainted  with  Igna- 
tius, though  he  refers  to  him  frequently,  could  not 
detect  the  error.§ 

*  It  is  observed  by  Salmasius,  in  his  Walo  Messalinus,  p.  193, 
that,  even  allowing  this  passage  to  have  all  the  credibility  which 
could  be  desired,  it  merely  affirms  that  he  received  the  government 
of  this  Church  with,  and  not  from,  the  Apostles,  //er*  m  a.-rroTrohav, 
and  that  the  same  also  are  the  readings  of  Theophanes  and  Rufinus. 

t  Animadv.  in  Eusebii  Chronol.  p.  178. 

t  Examine  especially  what  he  says  about  the  contradiction  between 
Hegesippus  and  Joscphus. 

§  It  is  remarkable  that  Bishop  Tomline,  who  boasted  of  having 
examined  more  than  sixty  volumes  of  the  Fathers,  when  preparing  his 


152 


LETTERS  ON" 


The  third  of  his  authorities  contains  its  own  refu- 
tation, for  if  Peter,  James  and  John  were  previous- 
ly Apostles,  and  consequently  superior  to  any  local 
bishop,  how  can  it  be  said  that  they  did  not  "contend, 
t7fi8i*a?f35at,"  or,  as  it  is  translated  by  Downam,* 
"  did  not  arrogate  to  themselves  the  honour  of  being 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  but  resigned  it  to  James  the 
Just?"  Would  not  this,  as  is  observed  by  Dr.  Bar- 
row upon  another  occasion,  when  contending  with  the 
Papists,  be  like  the  humility  of  a  sovereign  prince, 
who  would  not  be  solicitous  about  the  honour  of 
being  made  "a  justice  of  the  peace ?"t  or,  as  it  is 
expressed  by  Sutclive,  would  it  not  be  like  the  lowli- 
ness of  a  king,  "  who  was  not  ambitious  of  being 
created  a  questor,  or  any  other  inferior  magistrate 
And  if  it  be  urged  with  Downam  that  herein  James 
differed  from  the  rest,  for  to  him  at  the  first,  before 
their  dispersion,  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  was  assign- 
ed, while  the  others  did  not  receive  their  provinces 
till  afterwards,  "  neither  did  he  travaile,  as  the  rest, 
from  one  country  to  another,  being  not  confined  to 
any  one  province,  and  whereas  they  having  planted 
Churches,  when  they  saw  their  time,  committed  the 
same  to  certain  bishops,  yet  James,  abiding  all  his 
time  at  Jerusalem,  committed  that  Church  to  no 
other,"§  I  answer,  it  has  been  proved  already  that 
the  whole  of  this  story  about  the  division  of  provinces 
is  fabulous;  and  even  those  who  believe  it  cannot 
inform  us  when  the  division  took  place,  Photius  affirm- 
ing that  James  was  ordained  by  the  Saviour,||  and 
Xicephorus  Callistus  that  he  obtained  his  diocese,  first 
from  the  Saviour,  and  afterwards,  as  some  report, 
from  the  Apostles.!!    And  if  Paul  be  right  when  he 

Refutation  of  Calvinism,  quotes  a  passage  also  from  the  spurious 
Ignatius,  p.  288.    Did  he  read  by  deputy  ? 

*  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  lib.  iv.  p.  60. 

t  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  84. 

}  "  Nuin  rex  creari  solet  quaestor,"  &c.    De  Pontif.  lib.  ii.  cap.  1. 
§  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  lib.  iv.  p.  57,  58. 
II  Epist.  117,  p.  158. 

IT  Lib.  ii.  p.  196.  Eusebius  candidly  acknowledges,  Eccles.  Hist., 
lib.  iv.  cap.  5,  (though  he  lived  only  in  the  fourth  century,)  that  he 
had  not  been  able  to  discover  how  long  James,  and  a  number  of  the 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


153 


appeals  to  his  abundant  labours  and  extensive  travels, 
(2  Cor.  xi.  &c.)  as  a  proof  that  "he  was  not  a  whit 
behind  the  very  chiefest  Apostles;"  and  if  the  present 
honour,  as  well  as  future  reward  of  ministers  of  every 
order  will  be  proportioned  to  their  labours,  (1  Cor.  iii. 
8,  &c.)  the  second  and  third  of  these  reasons  must  be 
completely  nugatory.  I  shall  only  add,  that  as  Stil- 
lingfleet  observes,  "  the  power  of  James  was  of  the 
same  nature  with  that  of  the  Apostles  themselves. 
And  who,"  he  demands,  "will  go  about  to  degrade 
them  so  much  as  to  reduce  them  to  the  office  of  ordi- 
nary bishops?  James,  in  all  probability,  did  exercise 
his  apostleship  the  most  at  Jerusalem,  where  by  the 
Scriptures  we  find  him  resident;  and  from  hence  the 
Church  afterwards,  because  of  his  not  travelling  abroad 
as  the  other  Apostles  did,  according  to  the  language 
of  their  own  times,  fixed  the  title  of  bishop  upon 
him."*  The  latter  observation  presents  a  satisfactory 

bishops  of  Jerusalem  who  succeeded  him,  were  in  possession  of  their 
sees ;  and  if  so,  can  we  depend  on  the  testimony  of  such  writers  as 
affording  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  alleged  apostolical  succession 
was  never  broken  in  the  course  of  eighteen  hundred  years? 

*  Irenicum,  p.  321.  The  passage,  moreover,  which  is  quoted  by 
Bishop  Gleig  from  Jerome's  Catalogus  Scriptorum  Ecclesiasticorum, 
is  not  genuine ;  for  it  is  observed  by  Erasmus  in  his  notes  upon  that 
work,  as  well  as  by  Dr.  Cave  in  his  account  of  Jerome,  (Hist.  Lite- 
rar.,  p.  221,)  that  the  lives  of  James  and  of  Simon  the  Canaanite, 
were  added  to  it  by  some  later  author !  Here  then  wc  have  another 
very  humiliating  proof  of  the  Bishop's  copying  from  some  preceding 
writer,  and  of  the  inaccuracy  with  which  he  was  chargeable  amidst 
all  his  apparent  learning.  And  as  to  the  passage  from  Epiphanius, 
it  cannot  influence  a  single  individual  possessed  of  ordinary  powers 
of  reflection,  for  he  tells  us  in  Haeres.  Nazaraeorum,  that  James  was 
accustomed  to  wear  a  plate  of  gold  upon  his  forehead, — a  fiction  like 
that  which  is  related  by  Eusebius,  (Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  v.  cap.  24,) 
respecting  the  Apostle  John,  and  which  illustrates  sufficiently  the 
value  of  his  testimony. 

Boyd,  also,  in  his  Treatise  on  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  93, 
(and  he  makes  great  pretensions  to  extensive  and  accurate  investi- 
gation into  his  authorities,)  falls  into  the  same  blunder  with  Bishop 
Gleig,  in  attributing  this  part  of  the  "  Treatise  of  Ecclesiastical 
Writers"  to  Jerome.  And  he  quotes,  apparently  with  a  firm  convic- 
tion of  its  truth,  a  report  mentioned  by  Chrysostom,  of  ''the  Saviour 
having  ordained,  (I  presume  with  the  imposition  of  hands,)  and  ap- 
pointed his  brother  James  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,"  before  he 
ascended  to  heaven!  p.  92. 


154 


LETTERS  ON 


and  natural  reply  to  the  later  authorities  referred  to 
by  the  Bishop  and  other  defenders  of  your  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity;  and  I  trust  it  will  appear  from  what  is 
stated  below,  that  their  scriptural  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  the  Episcopacy  of  James  are  equally  inconclu- 
sive.* 

It  is  observed  by  Downam,  that  "when  the  Apos- 
tles ceased  to  travaile  in  their  olde  days  and  rested 
in  some  chief  citie  where  they  had  laboured,  they 
were  reputed  bishops  of  that  place,  though  some  of 
them  perhaps  were  not  properly  bishops."t  But  if 
their  commission  as  Apostles  still  remained  to  them, 
as  will  scarcely  be  denied,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
any  good  reason  why  even  a  single  individual  among 
them  could  then  be  degraded  from  his  office,  and  re- 
duced to  the  rank  of  a  bishop,  merely  because,  from 
the  infirmities  of  age,  he  was  less  able  to  travel  at 
large  and  perform  its  duties.  It  is  remarked  by  Bil- 
son,  that  "  though  the  Apostles  were  more  than  bish- 
ops, yet  they  were  more  also  than  presbyters;  and 
yet  Saint  Peter  could  tell  how  to  speake,  when  hee 
called  himselfe  avf<5rpf(T,3vttpof,  a  presbyter  as  well  as 
others.":);  He  has  failed,  however,  to  show  that  any 
of  the  Apostles  ever  called  himself  ewin«sxo7tos,  or  a 
diocesan  bishop,  as  well  as  other  diocesan  bishops; 
or  that  such  an  order  of  ministers  was  appointed,  and 
was  included,  like  all  other  inferior  orders,  in  the 

*  If  James,  as  is  observed  by  Stillingfleet,  exercised  his  apostleship 
principally  at  Jerusalem,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  and  commonly 
resided  there,  it  will  explain  the  whole  of  the  Scriptures  which  have 
been  quoted  by  Episcopalians  to  prove  that  he  was  merely  a  bishop, 
without  reducing  him  to  that  order.  "  And  who  knows  not,"  says 
Augustine,  "that  the  dignity  of  an  apostle  is  to  be  preferred  to  that 
of  any  bishop?  Quis  nescit  istum  Apostolatus  principatum  cuilibet 
Episcopatui  praeferendum  ?"  (Dc  Baptismo,  lib.  ii.  cap.  1.)  It  will 
account,  in  particular,  for  the  way  in  which  he  is  spoken  of,  Acts  xii. 
17;  xxi.  18;  Gal.  ii.  12.  And  when  he  said,  Acts  xv.  19,  "  <f<o  eym 
*/>/»«,  wherefore  my  sentence  is,"  he  evidently  laid  claim  to  no  more 
power  than  was  exercised  by  Peter  or  any  other  member  of  the 
Council,  for  "  the  decrees"  of  the  Council  are  denominated  not  merely 
the  decrees  of  James,  but  "  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders  which  were 
at  Jerusalem."  Acts  xvi.  4. 

+  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  lib.  iv.  p.  57. 

t  Perpetual!  Government,  p.  227. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


155 


apostolate,  and  consequently,  it  is  not  an  argument  in 
point.  And  it  is  stated  by  the  same  prelate,  that 
"  bishops  are  fastened  to  one  place,  not  by  the  force 
of  their  name,  but  by  the  order  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who  sent  Apostles  to  oversee  many  places,  and  settled 
pastors  to  oversee  one.  And,  therefore,  the  Apostles 
were  bishops,  and  more  than  bishops,  even  as  John 
was  more  than  a  prophet,  and  yet  a  prophet."*  But 
it  is  plain,  that  if  we  are  to  have  bishops  in  the  pre- 
sent day,  because  the  Apostles  were  bishops,  as  far 
as  this  argument  is  concerned,  their  episcopate  must 
resemble  that  of  the  Apostles.  The  Apostles,  how- 
ever, were  not  confined  to  any  particular  place  for 
the  exercise  of  their  authority,  but  might  officiate  not 
only  in  fifty  or  a  hundred  places,  but  in  every  quarter 
of  the  world.  And  as  no  such  power  could  be  con- 
ceded either  to  your  bishops  or  to  any  other,  the 
argument  which  has  been  founded  on  the  extraordi- 
nary authority  conferred  on  the  Apostles,  when  they 
founded  the  Church,  for  similar  power  throughout 
future  ages  to  diocesan  bishops,  an  order  of  ministers 
never  mentioned  in  Scripture,  totally  fails,  and  you  are 
not  entitled  to  maintain,  that  where  that  order  does 
not  exist,  there  can  be  neither  Church,  nor  ministry, 
nor  any  hope  of  salvation.  J 

I  remain,  Reverend  sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  Perpctuall  Government,  p.  227. 

t  Even  Bellarinine,  though  a  Papist  makes  the  following  candid 
statement  of  the  difference  between  apostles  and  bishops.  "  Bish- 
ops," says  he,  "have  no  part  of  the  true  apostolic  authority.  Apos- 
tles could  preach  and  found  churches  in  even/  part  of  the  world,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  last  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  Bishops  cannot 
do  this.  Apostles,  as  all  confess,  could  write  canonical  Epistles. 
Bishops  cannot  do  this.  Apostles  had  the  gift  of  tongues  and  the 
power  of  working  miracles.  This  does  not  belong  to  bishops.  Apos- 
tles had  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church.  This  is  not  possessed  by 
bishops.  Null.im  habent  cpiscopi  partem  verae  Apostolicae  auctori- 
tatis,"  &c.    De  Pontif.  Roman.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  25. 


156 


LETTER  XII. 

Bishop  Bilson  represents  the"  argument  for  Episcopacy,  from  the  powers 
conferred  on  Timothy  and  Titos,  as  "the  main  erection  of  the  Episcopal 
cause ;"  and  Bishop  Hall  declares,  that  if  it  fails  "  he  will  yield  the  cause, 
and  confess  that  he  has  lost  his  senses." — None  of  the  Fathers  during  the 
Jirst  three  centuries  represent  them  as  diocesan  bishops;  and  Willet,  Stil- 
lingfleet,  and  Bishop  Bridges  acknowledge  them  to  have  been  extraordi- 
nary ministers,  or  Evangelists — Nature  of  the  office  of  Evangelists,  as 
illustrated  by  Scripture  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. — Different  from 
that  of  diocesan  bishops,  and  superior  to  it. — Diocesan  bishops  never  said 
to  have  been  associated  with  Evangelists  or  Apostles  in  any  act  of  juris- 
diction or  government,  though  Presbyters  repeatedly  took  part  with  them 
in  such  acts. — No  notice  of  diocesan  bishops  as  an  order  existing  in  their 
days. — The  argument  in  every  point  of  view  inconclusive. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  next  argument  in  support  of 
diocesan  Episcopacy  is  derived  from  the  powers  which 
are  represented  as  having  been  committed  to  Timothy 
and  Titus;  and  from  the  terms  in  which  it  is  men- 
tioned by  two  of  the  most  eminent  and  learned  of  your 
prelates,  it  would  seem  that  they  attached  to  it  the 
very  highest  importance,  and  considered  it  as  irre- 
sistible. "  This,  indeed,"  said  Bilson,  "  is  the  main 
erection  of  the  Episcopal  power  and  function,  if  our 
proofes  drawn  from  these  ministers  stand,  or  subver- 
sion, if  your  answere  be  good.  For  if  this  faile,  wel 
may  bishops  claime  their  authoritie  by  the  custome  of 
the  Church;  by  any  divine  precept  expressed  in  the 
Scriptures  they  cannot."*  And  said  Bishop  Hall, 
"  I  demand  what  is  it  that  it  stood  upon,  but  these 
two  particulars,  the  especiall  power  of  ordination,  and 
power  of  the  ruling  and  censuring  of  presbyters;  and 
if  these  two  be  not  clear  in  the  charge  of  the  Apostle 
to  these  two  bishops,  one  of  Crete,  the  other  of  Ephe- 
sus,  I  shall  yield  the  cause,  and  confess  to  want  my 
senses."t  I  propose,  accordingly,  to  examine  "  this 
main  erection  of  the  Episcopal  function,"  the  over- 
throw of  which,  if  I  shall  succeed  in  accomplishing  it, 
ought  to  lead  you  to  abandon  that  lofty  claim  of  divine 

*  Perpetuall  Government,  chap.  xiv.  p.  300. 

t  Hall's  Episcopacy  by  Divine  Right,  book  2,  p.  26. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


157 


right  for  your  ecclesiastical  polity  which  you  have 
built  upon  it;  and  if  you  possess  the  candour  of  the 
last  of  these  prelates,  "  to  yield  the  cause,"  though 
you  should  not,  like  him,  if  you  maintain  it  any  longer, 
"admit  that  you  would  want  your  senses." 

This  argument,  then,  (and  as  1  am  anxious  to  do  it 
justice,  I  have  selected  the  most  comprehensive  state- 
ment of  it  that  I  have  met  with,  namely,  that  by 
Bishop  Downam,)  has  been  proposed  in  the  following 
terms: 

"  But  we  are  also,"  says  he,  "  to  show  the  places 
where,  and  the  persons  whom  the  Apostles  ordained 
bishops,  and  first  out  of  the  Scriptures.  For  by  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothe  and  Titus,  it  is  appa- 
rent that  hee  had  ordained  Timothe  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  and  Titus  of  Creet;  the  Epistles  themselves  being 
the  verie  patterns  and  precedents  of  the  episcopall 
function.  For,  as  the  Apostle  had  committed  unto 
them  episcopall  authoritie,  both  in  respect  of  ordina- 
tion and  jurisdiction,  which  in  the  Epistles  is  pre-sup- 
posed,  so  doth  he  by  those  Epistles  informe  them,  and 
in  them  all  bishops,  how  to  exercise  their  function. 
First,  in  respect  of  ordination,  as  Tit.  i.  5;  I  left  thee 
in  Creet,  that  thou  shouldst  ordaine  presbyters  in  every 
citie,  as  I  appointed  thee.  1  Tim.  v.  22,  Impose  hands 
hastily  on  no  man  ;  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's 
sinnes.  Secondly,  in  regard  of  jurisdiction,  not  onely 
over  the  people,  but  also  over  the  presbyters;  appoint- 
ing them  to  be  both  guides  and  censurers  of  their  doc- 
trine, as  1  Tim.  i.  3,  I  required  thee  to  continue  in 
Ephesus,  that  thou  shouldest  commaund  some  that 
they  teach  no  strange  doctrine,  neither  that  they  attend 
to  fables,  &c.  2  Tim.  ii.  16  ;  Tit.  i.  10-11,  iii.  9  ;  and 
also  judges  of  their  person  and  conversation,  as  1  Tim. 
v.  19,  20,  21,  Against  a  presbyter  receive  not  an  accu- 
sation, but  under  two  or  three  witnesses,"  &c* 

Now,  upon  this  I  would  remark,  in  the  first  place, 
that  even  admitting  their  interpretation  of  the  different 
passages  contained  in  this  extract,  they  have  no  right 

*  Sermon  on  the  Function  of  Bishops,  p.  72-74. 


15S 


LETTERS  ON 


to  claim  similar  powers  to  ordinary  ministers,  like 
diocesan  bishops,  in  the  present  day,  unless  they  had 
proved  that  Timothy  and  Titns  were  only  ordinary 
ministers  of  the  very  same  order,  and  were  to  be  suc- 
ceeded by  others  till  the  end  of  the  world.  It  is  this 
which  constitutes  the  very  strength  of  the  argument, 
and  as  it  has  never  yet  been  proved,  but  only  taken 
for  granted,  and  as  I  think  that  the  contrary  is  estab- 
lished by  evidence  which  cannot  be  controverted,  the 
argument  fails.  You  profess  to  respect  the  opinions 
of  the  fathers,  and  I  challenge  you  to  produce  a  single 
passage  from  the  writings  of  any  of  them,  during  the 
first  three  centuries,  in  which  they  say  that  they  con- 
sider them  to  have  been  bishops.  Dr.  Whitby  could 
not  do  it,*  and  I  have  been  equally  unsuccessful,  and 
I  shall  wait  till  I  see  whether  3^ou  are  more  fortunate. 
Chrysostom,  in  a  passage  which  is  quoted  from  him 
by  Mocket,  Archbishop  Abbot's  chaplain,  acknow- 
ledges that  they  were  evangelists.t  Such,  too,  was 
the  opinion  of  Willet,  who  says,  "  It  is  most  like  that 
Timothie  had  the  place  and  calling  of  an  evangelist, 
whose  office  was  to  second  the  apostles  into  their 
ministerie,  and  to  wuter  that  which  the  Apostles  had 
planted.^!  "They  were  but  very  few,"  says  Stil- 
lingfleet,  "  and  those  in  probability  not  the  ablest,  who 
were  left  at  home  to  take  care  of  the  spoil ;  the  strong- 
est and  ablest,  like  commanders  in  an  army,  were  not 
settled  in  any  troop,  but  went  up  and  down,  from  this 
company  to  that,  to  order  them  and  draw  them  forth ; 
and  while  they  were,  they  had  the  chief  authority 
among  them,  but  as  commanders  of  the  army,  and  not 
as  officers  of  the  troop.  Such  were  evangelists,  who 
were  sent  sometimes  into  this  country,  to  put  the 
churches  in  order  there,  sometimes  into  another  ;  but 
wherever  they  were,  they  acted  as  evangelists,  and 
not  as  fixed  officers.  And  such  were  Timothy  and 
Titus,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  made  to  it, 
as  will  appear  to  any  that  will  take  an  impartial  sur- 

*  Preface  to  the  Epistle  to  Titus. 

t  Tractat.  de  Politia  Anglican. 

t  Append,  to  the  5th  General  Controv.,  Quest.  3. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


159 


vey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides."*  And  says 
Bishop  Bridges,  whom  no  one  will  suspect  of  a  lean- 
ing to  Presbyterianism,  "  The  same  Philip  is  called  an 
Evangelist ;  so  was  Tirnothie ;  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  Such 
was  Titus,  Silas,  and  manie  other.  This  office  also, 
with  the  order  of  the  Jjpostles,  is  expired,  and  hath 
no  place.  Likewise,  as  wee  doo  plainlie  see,  that  the 
gifts  of  healing,  of  powers  or  miracles,  and  of  diverse 
toongs,  have  long  since  ceased  in  the  Church  ;  so  the 
offices  of  them  which  were  grounded  upon  these  gifts 
must  also  cease,  and  be  determined."^  And  what  is 
still  more  important,  such,  likewise,  is  the  express 
declaration  of  Scripture,  for  Paul  enjoins  Timothy, 
(2  Tim.  iv.  5,)  to  "do  the  work  of  an  evangelist;" 
and  it  is  evident  that  the  duties  which  he  prescribes 
to  him  are  the  same  with  those  which  were  assigned 
to  Titus. 

The  office  of  an  Evangelist  was  the  third  of  the 
three  great  extraordinary  offices  which  were  instituted 
by  the  Redeemer,  for  founding  and  organizing  the 
primitive  Church,  and  which  are  represented  by  Paul, 
(Eph.  iv.  11,)  as  distinct  from  that  of  the  ordinary 
standing  ministry,  which  was  to  be  occupied  by  pas- 
tors and  teachers.  Those  who  were  invested  with 
the  former  office,  though  properly  the  helpers  or  as- 
sistants of  the  Apostles,  whose  function  was  to  cease 
with  that  of  their  masters,  approached  very  nearly  to 
the  latter  in  rank,  acted  as  their  substitutes  on  many 
occasions,  and  when  executing  their  commands,  seem 
to  have  been  permitted  to  exercise  almost  equal  au- 
thority. Hence,  while  they  are  described  by  Tertul- 
lian  as  "  apostolic  men,"|  and  by  Jerome  as  "  the 
sons  of  the  Apostles, "§  Augustine  designates  them 
very  happily  by  a  most  expressive  name,  signifying 
literally,  "  the  substitutes  of  the  Apostles,  who  were 
almost  ecpial  to  theni."||    Sometimes,  as  in  the  case 

*  Irenicum,  p.  340. 

t  Defence  of  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  England,  book  i. 
p.  68. 

t  Lib.  4,  Advers.  Mar.  "  Viri  Apostolici." 

ij  Filii  Apostolorum  ;  Comment,  in  Iesai.  cap.  65. 

||  Suppares  Apostolis  ;  Pernio  146,  de  Tempore. 


160 


LETTERS  ON 


of  Timothy,  they  appear  to  have  received  an  imme- 
diate and  supernatural  call;  for  Paul  refers  to  "the 
prophecies  which  went  before  respecting  him;"  inti- 
mating, probably,  that  it  was  the  will  of  God  he  should 
be  appointed  to  his  office,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  said  to 
the  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch,  "  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Paul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have 
called  them."  We  know,  too,  that  they  were  endow- 
ed with  the  power  of  working  miracles,  for  it  is  men- 
tioned, (Acts  viii.  6-8,)  that  "  the  Samaritans'  with 
one  accord  gave  heed  unto  those  things  which  Philip 
(the  Evangelist)  spake,  hearing  and  seeing  the  mira- 
cles which  he  did.  For  unclean  spirits,  crying  with 
loud  voice,  came  out  of  many  that  were  possessed 
with  them;  and  many  taken  with  palsies,  and  that 
were  lame,  were  healed.  And  there  was  great  joy  in 
that  city."  And  we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
same  supernatural  gifts  which  were  possessed  by  him 
were  communicated  to  the  rest  of  the  evangelists  ;  in 
addition  to  which,  Bilson  admits,  that  in  common 
with  the  prophets,  they  "  had  these  two  (other)  gifts, 
the  revealing  of  secrets,  and  discerning  of  spirits, 
(though  in  lesse  measure  than  the  Apostles,)  which 
served  chiefly  to  distinguish  who  were  fit  or  unfit  for 
the  service  of  Christ's  Church."*  Sometimes,  as  in 
the  case  of  Philip,  when  he  preached  in  Samaria,  they 
came  before  the  Apostles,  and  founded  churches,  and 
the  Apostles  succeeded  them,  and  organized  these 

*  "  Nam  cum  primum  ecclc-siae  plantarentur,"  says  Bilson,  in  the 
Latin  translation  of  his  Treatise  on  Church  Government,  p.  125, 
"  etiam  i  11  i  qui  credebant  in  divinis  Scripturis  et  mysteriis  adeo  ty- 
rones  fuerunt  et  rudes  ut  ad  populum  docendum  et  regendum  nulli 
fuerint  idonei,  nisi  qui  Apostoli,  per  manuum  suarum  impositionein 
variis  Spiritus  Sancti  donis  instrucrent,  et  ad  illud  inunus  exequen- 
dum  aptos  efficerent ;  in  Samaria  recens  ad  fidem  conversa  prorsus  ad 
Evangelii  praedicationem  et  ecclesiae  gubernationem  inermes  et  inepti 
fuerunt  donee  Petrus  et  Joannes  eorum  aliquos  Spiritus  Sancti  vir- 
tute,  per  manuum  imposilionem  donantes  alios  prophetas,  alios  pas- 
tores,  alios  doctores,  mirabiliter  effecerant;  quemque  donis  ad  func- 
tionem  necessariis  adornantes."  So  little  did  he  see  in  this  passage, 
which  evidently  does  not  refer  to  confirmation,  to  warrant  that  rite 
which  none  of  the  Apostles  or  of  the  ministers  of  the  Apostolic  Church 
ever  performed,  but  which  is  one  of  those  human  inventions  that  are 
practised  in  the  Scottish  and  English  Episcopalian  Churches. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


161 


churches;  and  as  the  last  writer  admits,  laid  their 
hands  on  some  of  the  converts,  not  to  confirm  them, 
as  Episcopalians  assert,  but  to  communicate  to  them 
spiritual  gifts,  that  they  might  be  qualified  immediately 
for  becoming  the  pastors  of  these  churches.*  And  at 
other  times  evangelists  came  after  the  Apostles;  and 
when  the  latter  had  planted,  the  former,  as  in  the 
case  of  Apollos  and  Titus,  "  watered  and  set  in  order 
the  things  which  were  wanting,  ordaining  elders  in 
every  city."  Such  is  the  view  which  was  presented 
of  their  office  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  con- 
firmed by  a  well-known  passage  of  Eusebius.  "At 
the  same  time,"  says  he,  "flourished  Quadratus,  who, 
together  with  the  daughters  of  Philip,  was  famous  for 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  besides  them,  many  others 
who  occupy  the  principal  place  among  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles.  These  persons  being  the  venerable 
disciples  of  such  men,  built  up  the  churches  in  every 
place  of  which  the  foundation  had  been  laid  by  the 
Jlpostles,  promoting  more  and  more  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  and  scattering  through  the  world  the  salu- 
tary seed  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For  many  of 
the  disciples  of  that  period,  whose  minds  were  in- 
flamed by  the  word  with  the  most  ardent  attachment 
to  the  true  philosophy,  fulfilling  the  commandment  of 
their  Saviour,  divided  their  substance  among  the  poor, 
and  having  been  sent  forth  with  authority,  performed 
the  office  of  evangelists  to  those  who  had  never  heard 
the  word  of  faith,  being  most  desirous  to  preach  Christ 
unto  them,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the  writings  of 
the  divine  Gospels.  These  men  having  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  faith  in  some  remote  places,  having 
ordained  also  others  to  be  pastors  over  them,  and 
having  committed  to  their  care  the  cultivation  of 
xohat  they  had  themselves  begun,  hastened  to  other 
countries  and  nations,  being  accompanied  by  the 
grace  and  power  of  God."t  It  seems  impossible, 
therefore,  to  deny  that  the  office  of  evangelists  was 

*  See  preceding  note. 

t  "  Twv  Si  x*ru  Towv'.vt  SiAXi/Jt^iyrcei  x%i  Kc/^iTO?,"  &.C.  Ecclcs. 
Hist.,  lib.  iii.  cap.  37. 

11 


162 


LETTERS  ON 


extraordinary  and  temporary,  like  that  of  the  Apostles, 
and  not  only  different  from,  but  greatly  superior  to 
that  of  modern  diocesan  bishops.  And  it  is  certainly 
contrary  to  all  the  acknowledged  rules  of  reasoning  to 
found  an  argument  on  the  powers  of  ministers  of  a 
higher  order,  (the  Suppares  Apostolorum,)  who  were 
richly  endowed  with  supernatural  gifts,  and  who  were 
able  to  perform  miraculous  works,  for  similar  powers 
to  inferior  ministers,  who  are  destitute  of  the  one, 
and  who  cannot  perform  the  other, — ministers  too,  of 
an  order  to  which  there  is  no  allusion  in  the  Epistles 
which  are  addressed  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  in  any 
other  part  of  the  sacred  volume,  and  who  in  no  sense 
of  the  word,  when  it  is  used  as  a  distinctive  official 
title,  can  be  called  evangelists. 

I  will  be  told,  however,  by  Bishop  Gleig,  that  "the 
word  tvayyixi^r^,  rendered  an  evangelist,  is  unques- 
tionably derived  from  ed'o^e  jugu ;  but  that  word,  says 
Dr.  Campbell,  relates  to  the  first  intimation  that  is 
given  to  a  person  or  people,  that  is,  when  the  subject 
may  be  properly  called  news.  Thus,  in  the  Acts,  it 
is  frequently  used  for  expressing  the  first  publication 
of  the  Gospel  in  a  city,  or  a  village,  or  amongst  a 
particular  people.  If  this  be  essential  to  the  radical 
import  of  the  verb,  of  which,  indeed,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  then  it  follows  that  an  evangelist,  considered 
as  a  distinct  character,  could  only  be  one,  whether 
apostle,  elder,  deacon  or  layman,  who  first  carried  the 
glad  tidings  of  the  Gospel  to  an  individual  or  a  peo- 
ple. Hence  it  is  that  of  the  seven  deacons  none  is 
called  an  evangelist  but  Philip,  because  he  alone  of 
the  whole  number  is  mentioned  as  having  carried  the 
glad  tidings  of  the  Gospel  beyond  the  limits  of  Judea, 
within  which  those  tidings  were  first  told  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles.  Hence,  too,  it  appears,  that  those 
whom  St.  Paul  says  Christ,  after  his  resurrection, 
gave  as  evangelists  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  must 
have  been  men  miraculously  inspired  with  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Gospel,  and  impelled  by  the  same  heavenly 
impulse  to  communicate  that  knowledge  to  those  to 
whom  it  was  news.    But  in  this  sense  Timothy  and 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


163 


Titus  could  not  be  evangelists  to  the  Churches  of 
Ephesus  and  Crete,  because  St.  Paul  had  preached 
the  Gospel  in  those  churches  before  them,  and  had 
even  ordained  presbyters  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus."* 
Now,  upon  this  I  would  remark,  that  according 
to  the  principle  which  is  here  laid  down,  (and  it  is 
only  an  old  evasion  of  our  reply  to  the  argument  for 
diocesan  Episcopacy  from  the  powers  committed  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,)  an  evangelist  was  not  a  distinct 
office-bearer  intrusted  with  a  particular  function  in 
the  primitive  Church,  but  any  one  who  first  made 
known  the  Gospel  in  a  city  or  country,  whether  it 
was  a  woman,  or  a  layman,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  pres- 
byter, or  a  prophet,  or  an  Apostle.  Nay,  the  angels 
must  have  been  evangelists,  when  they  brought  the 
glad  tidings  to  the  shepherds  of  Bethlehem;  and  An- 
drew and  Philip,  even  bp/ore  they  were  baptized, 
when  they  brought  them  to  Peter  and  Nathanael;  and 
the  Samaritan  woman,\vhen  she  communicated  them 
to  her  townsmen.  Nothing,  however,  can  be  more 
inconsistent  than  this  with  the  description  which  is 
given  of  an  evangelist,  either  in  Scripture  or  in  the 
writings  of  the  fathers.  In  the  former,  as  has  been 
mentioned,  he  is  represented  as  an  extraordinary 
minister,  ivith  a  particular  office,  distinct  from  that 
of  any  other  minister;  for,  says  Paul,  Eph.  iv.  11, 
"  he  gave  some,  apostles,  some,  prophets,  some,  evan- 
lists,  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers."  But  how  he 
could  be  said  to  have  given  only  some  to  be  evange- 
lists, if  they  did  not  constitute  a  separate  order,  and  if 
every  minister  of  every  order  in  that  early  age,  and 
every  minister  throughout  future  ages,  and  even  every 
man,  and  woman,  and  child,  who  first  made,  known 
these  glad  tidings  to  a  single  individual, was  really  an 
evangelist,  and  performed  all  that  was  meant  by  that 
word,  as  Dowuara  and  Bishop  Gleig  and  others  con- 
tend, I  cannot  comprehend.  And  how  could  Saravia 
blunder  so  egregiously,  as  to  infer  from  this  passage, 
that  "  there  were  distinct  orders  among  the  ministers 


*  Ninth  vol.  of  the  Anti-Jacohin  Review. 


164 


LETTERS  OS 


of  the  Gospel,  the  Apostles  being  prophets,  evange- 
lists, teachers  and  pastors:  and  the  evangelists  being 
prophets,  pastors  and  teachers,"  &lc*  Philip  is  called 
an  evangelist,  not  immediately  after  he  preached  the 
Gospel  in  Sar?iaria,  but  long  afterwards,  Acts  xxi.  S; 
and  not  because  he  was  the  first  who  preached  the 
Gospel  in  that  city,  but  because  ''having  used  the 
office  of  a  deacon  well,  he  obtained  for  himself  a  good 
degree,"  and  was  promoted  to  the  office  of  an  evan- 
gelist. Besides,  as  evangelists  not  only  sometimes 
went  before  the  Apostles,  and  were  the  first  who 
preached  the  Gospel  in  a  place;  but  as  Willet  and 
Eusebius  state,  sometimes  also  came  after  them,  like 
Apollos,  (1  Cor.  iii.  6,)  "and  seconded  them  in  their 
ministerie,  watering  that  which  they  had  planted," 
or  organizing  the  churches  which  they  had  founded, 
and  "  setting  in  order  the  things  which  were  want- 
ing," the  latter  was  a  part  of  the  office  of  an  evange- 
list, which  Timothy  and  Titus  could  do;  and  which 
office,  in  all  its  parts,  Timothy  was  expressly  enjoined 
to  perform;  2  Tim.  iv.  4.  This  objection,  therefore, 
to  the  order  of  extraordinary  early  ministers,  to  which 
We  assign  these  distinguished  fellow-labourers  of  the 
Apostles,  is  utterly  groundless.  And  if  they  are  to  be 
ranked  among  the  evangelists,  no  claim  can  be  urged 
from  the  powers  which  they  exercised  in  their  high 
office  for  similar  powers  to  diocesan  bishops,  who  are 
never  said  to  have  been  associated  with  them  while 
they  lived,  either  in  ordination  or  jurisdiction,  and 
who  are  never  represented  as  the  ministers  who  were 
to  succeed  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  authority  after 
they  left  the  world. 

It  is  plain  also  from  the  fact,  that  neither  Timothy 
nor  Titus  was  confined  to  any  particular  diocese,  but 
was  constantly  employed  in  travelling  with  the  Apos- 
tles and  assisting  them  in  their  labours,  or  in  planting 
or  watering  different  churches,  that  they  were  evan- 
gelists and  uot  bishops. 

*  Gradus  Ministror.  Evangel,  consec.  ita  distinctos  fuisse,"  &.C.  ad. 
cap.  i.  Bez.  de  divers,  grad.  Minist.  Evangel. 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACV. 


165 


"  Episcopacy,"  says  Dr.  Barrow,  "  is  an  ordinary 
standing  charge,  affixed  to  one  standing  place,  and 
requiring  a  special,  attendance  there*  But  evange- 
lists, as  is  stated  by  Eusebius,  after  having  founded  or 
organized  churches  in  one  place,  hastened  to  another. 
It  is  impossible,  accordingly,  to  read  what  is  said  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  in  the  New  Testament,  without 
perceiving  that  they  were  evangelists,  for  they  had 
no  more  any  fixed  and  settled  charge  than  the  Apos- 
tles themselves,  but  were  constantly  moving  from 
place  to  place.  Thus,  it  is  mentioned  respecting  Timo- 
thy, that  as  soon  as  he  was  ordained  to  the  ministry, 
(Acts  xvi.)  he  travelled  with  Paul  through  Phrygia, 
Galatia,  Asia  and  Mysia,  from  which  they  came  to 
Philippi,  and  after  remaining  there  for  a  time  he  was 
sent  to  Corinth,  where  he  preached  to  that  Church, 
(2  Cor.  i.  19,)  and  then  returned  to  the  Apostle.  They 
went  together  from  Philippi  toThessalonica  and  Berea; 
and  Paul  having  proceeded  to  Athens,  Timothy  soon 
followed  him,  and  was  by  and  by  despatched  again 
to  Thessalonica,  to  confirm  and  water  the  Church  in 
that  city.  Michaelis  thinks  that  the  Apostle  wrote 
his  first  Epistle  to  him  when  he  left  him  at  Ephesus, 
after  he  himself  was  obliged  to  leave  it,  (Acts  xix.)  to 
re-establish  order  in  that  Church,  to  fill  the  ecclesias- 
tical offices,  and  to  oppose  the  false  teachers;"  and  he 
considers  it  as  evident  from  what  is  mentioned  in  the 
third  chapter,  that  "  no  bishops  had  then  been  ap- 
pointed among  them."  This  took  place  when  Timothy 
was  young,  (1  Tim.  iv.  12,)  or,  according  to  the  opin- 
ion of  the  most  eminent  critics,  when  he  was  about 
twenty-six  or  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  and  several 
years  before  the  last  interview  of  the  Apostle  with  the 
presbyters  of  Ephesus,  (Acts  xx.)  whom  he  addresses 
as  bishops,  v.  28,  without  representing  them  as  under 
the  Episcopate  of  Timothy.  And  as  not  a  word  is 
said  of  his  being  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  or  of  his 
being  bound  to  reside  there;  so  his  stay  there  was 
short,  for  he  accompanied  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  followed 
him  to  Rome,  (Colos.  i.  1,)  was  imprisoned  there,  and 


*  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  82. 


166 


LETTERS  ON 


liberated  shortly  before  the  Apostle  was  liberated, 
(Heb.  xiii.  23,)  from  which  he  proceeded  very  pro- 
bably to  Philippi.  And  the  same  observation  applies 
to  Titus,  whose  residence  in  Crete  appears  to  have 
been  short;  for  Paul  tells  him,  (ch.  iii.  12,)  that  "when 
he  sent  Tychicus  or  Artemas  to  him,  he  wished  him 
to  come  to  him  to  Nicopolis,"  and  who  laboured  also 
among  the  Churches  in  Macedonia  and  Dalmafia,  as 
well  as  at  Rome  and  Corinth.*  If  the  scene,  however, 
of  the  labours  of  these  ministers  changed  so  frequently, 
and  if  they  were  constantly  moved  from  place  to  place 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  Hilary  expresses 
it  in  his  own  most  apposite  language,  "  had  no  cathe- 
dral seat,  evangclizabant  sine  cathedra,"  what  must 
we  think  of  this  main  erection  of  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy, since  it  is  evident  from  these  facts  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  not  bishops,  but  were  among  the  chief 
of  the  evangelists? 

It  has  been  asserted,  I  am  aware,  by  Downman, 
that,  "  although  upon  special  and  extraordinary  occa- 
sions they  were  by  the  Apostles  called  to  other  places, 
as  his  or  the  Churches'  necessity  required ;  yet  Ephesus 
and  Crete  were  the  place  of  their  ordinary  residence, 
where  they  both  lived  and  died.  Paul,"  says  he, 
"  willeth  Timothe,  (1  Tim.  i.  3,)  7t£o<j^Eti>ai,permanere, 
(the  word  is  significant,)  to  abide  still,  or  to  continue 
at  Ephesus ;  and  he  left  Titus  not  to  redresse  things 
in  Creet  for  a  brunt,  and  so  to  come  away,  but  that 
he  shuld  (Tit.  i.  5,)  trtiSiweOuoat,  continue  in  reparasing 
what  should  be  amisse,  and  still  keep  that  Church  as 
it  were  in  reparation. "t  But  nothing  can  be  deduced 
from  the  term  trti8iue,9u>eai  which  will  warrant  that 
statement;  for,  as  is  acknowledged  by  Anselmof  Can- 
terbury, it  denotes  merely  that  he  was  to  perfect  the 
organizing  of  the  Churches  which  had  been  begun  by 
Paul;J  and  the  way  in  which  he  was  to  do  this  was 

»  2  Cor.  vii.  5,  6;  2  Tim.  iv.  10;  2  Cor.  vii.  13,  15;  viii.  6, 
12,  18. 
t  Sermon,  p.  76. 

t  "  At  ea  inquit,  quae  desunt  corrigas,  id  est,  ut  ea  quae  a  me  cor- 
recta  sunt,  et  necdum  ad  plenam  veri  lineam  sunt  redacta  a  te  corri- 
gantur,  et  normam  aequalitatis  recipiant." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


167 


by  "ordaining  presbyters  in  every  city."  And  not  a 
word  is  to  be  met  with  about  his  continuing  there  any 
longer;  and  for  any  tiling  that  is  afterwards  recorded 
respecting  him,  one  might  as  consistently  conclude 
with  Aquinas,  from  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  that  he  was  Bishop 
of  Dalmatia,  as  infer  from  this  passage,  with  modern 
Episcopalians,  that  he  was  Bishop  or  Archbishop  of 
Crete.  And  as  to  the  term  Tt^oafii ivai,  1  Tim.  i.  3,  so 
far  from  proving  that  Timothy  was  to  reside  perma- 
nently at  Ephesus,  it  does  not  furnish  the  smallest 
ground  for  that  assertion.  It  signifies  in  general  to 
remain,  but  whether  for  a  shorter  or  longer  time,  must 
be  ascertained  from  other  circumstances.  Sometimes 
it  denotes  continuance  in  a  place  for  a  number  of  days, 
(Acts  xviii.  18;)  sometimes  for  three  days,  (Math.xv. 
3 ;  Mark  viii.  2 ;)  and  sometimes  for  scarcely  three 
hours,  (Judges  iii.  15,  Septuagint.)  And  as  such  is 
its  general  signification,  so  it  is  evident  that  in  the 
passage  in  question  it  can  denote  only  a  temporary 
residence ;  for  if  Ephesus  had  been  allotted  to  Timo- 
thy as  his  diocese,  Paul  would  not  have  "  besought," 
but  would  have  commanded  him  "  to  remain  in  it." 
"  How  ingenious,"  says  Daillee,  "  is  the  passion  for 
the  crosier  and  the  mitre,  which  in  a  few  plain  words 
has  discovered  such  mysteries!  For  where  is  the 
man,  who,  using  only  his  natural  understanding  with- 
out the  fire  that  affection  imparts  to  it,  would  have 
ever  found  out  so  many  mitres  as  those  of  a  bishop, 
and  an  archbishop,*  and  a  primate  in  these  two  expres- 
sions, Paul  besought  Timothy  to  remain  at  Ephe- 
sus? Who,  without  the  aid  of  an  extraordinary 
passion,  could  have  divined  a  thing  so  fine  and  so 
marvellous,  and  could  have  imagined,  that  to  entreat 
a  man  to  abide  in  a  city,  was  to  appoint  him  the 
bishop  of  it,  archbishop  of  the  province,  and  primate 
of  the  whole  country?  Without  exaggeration,  the 
cause  of  these  hierarchical  gentlemen  must  be  reduced 
to  great  straits  when  they  are  obliged  to  have  recourse 
to  such  pitiful  arguments.  As  to  myself,  considering 
matters  coolly,  I  should  have  concluded  on  the  con- 

*  Some  of  the  fathers  make  him  an  archbishop. 


168 


LETTERS  ON 


trary,  from  the  Apostle  beseeching  Timothy  to  remain 
at  Ephesus,  that  he  could  not  have  been  Bishop  of 
Ephesus.  For  to  what  purpose  would  it  be  to  entreat 
a  bishop  to  remain  in  his  diocese  ?  Is  not  this  to 
beseech  a  man  to  continue  in  a  place  to  which  he  is 
tied  down?  I  should  not  have  thought  it  strange  if 
he  had  been  entreated  to  leave  it,  had  there  been  need 
for  his  services  elsewhere.  But  to  beseech  him  to  stop 
in  a  place  of  which  he  had  the  charge,  and  which  he 
could  not  quit  ivithout  displeasing  God  and  neglect- 
ing his  duty,  to  say  the  truth,  is  a  request  which  is 
not  a  little  extraordinary,  and  which  evidently  sup- 
poses that  he  had  not  his  duty  much  at  heart,  since  he 
needed  to  be  besought  to  do  it.  But  however  that 
may  be,  it  is  very  certain  that  to  beseech  a  man  to 
remain  in  a  place  does  not  signify  that  he  is  consti- 
tuted the  bishop  of  it.'"*  It  cannot  therefore  be  inferred 
from  these  passages,  that  either  Timothy  or  Titus  was 
merely  a  bishop.  And  when  it  is  recollected,  that  at 
the  time  when  some  of  the  fathers  began  to  represent 
Timothy  as  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  say  that  he  was 
appointed  to  his  see  by  Paul,  they  assert  that  another 
bishop,  named  John,  was  appointed  to  the  same  bish- 
opric by  the  Apostle  John,  who  was  Primate  of  all 
Asia,  in  which  also  others  associate  Timothy  with 
him,t  it  increases  the  absurdity,  and  shows  the  despe- 
rate state  of  the  cause  which  depends  on  such  support, 
and  yet  the  defenders  of  which  are  continually  boast- 
ing that  theirs  are  the  only  Apostolic  Churches,  out 
of  which  you  cannot  enjoy  the  Christian  ministry,  nor 
a  covenanted  title  to  the  blessings  of  salvation. 

It  will  not  follow  that  Timothy  was  not  an  evange- 

*  Sermon  1,  sur  l'Ep.  I.  a  Timothee,  p.  22. 

t  It  is  said  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  lib.  7,  cap.  46,  that 
"  when  Timothy  was  made  fiishop  of  Ephesus  by  Paul,  John  was 
made  bishop  of  it  by  the  Apostle  John,  tjic  Si  E^tryj  Ti/x'Aen  ftm  xitcd 
Uivxcu,  ImautK  Si  vir'  iucu  laxttiu"  ■  Cotelerius  indeed  attempts  to 
show  that  it  means  only  that  John  succeeded  Timothy,  and  rejects  the 
idea  stated  in  Mttaphraste  apud  Syrium,  and  in  the  martyrdom  of 
Timothy,  Codex  254,  Bibliothecae  Photii,  that  John  the  Apostle  came 
after  Timothy  in  the  Episcopate  of  Ephesus  and  Asia.  But  he  allows 
that  he  was  Primate  of  Asia  during  the  bishoprics  of  Timothy  and 
the  other  John,  and  the  whole  statement  appears  very  ridiculous. 


PtTSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


169 


list,  as  has  sometimes  been  alleged,  because  he  was  ex- 
horted ( 1  Tim.  iv.  1 3,)  to  "  give  attendance  to  reading." 
Daniel  did  so,  (Dan.  ix.  2,  &c.)  though  he  was  a  pro- 
phet; and  Paul  did  so,  though  he  was  an  Apostle,  (2 
Tim.  iv.  13;)  and  while  I  admit  that  his  learning  has 
been  frequently  overrated,*  yet  he  seems  to  have  been 

*  It  has  been  asserted  by  Cave,  in  his  Life  of  this  Apostle,  c.  8,  p. 
428,  that  lie  was  not  only  acquainted  with  Jewish  learning-,  but  with 
the  philosophy  and  the  more  elegant  accomplishments  of  the  Greeks, 
and  that  he  was  thus  prepared  tor  being  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  for  fighting  the  most  learned  of  the  Greeks  with  their  own  wea- 
pons. And  the  same  was  the  opinion  of  Witsius,  (Mcletem.  Leid.  in 
Vita  Pauli,)  of  Pfaffius,  (Dissert,  de  Apostolo  Paulo,  p.  2,  3,)  of  Wind- 
heim,  (Dissert,  de  Paulo,  Gentium  Apostolo,  contra  Th.  Morganum, 
Hal.  1745,)  and  of  many  others.  But  it  is  proved  by  Thalmannus,  ia 
an  able  Dissertation  de  Eruditione  Pauli  Apostoli,  edit.  Lipsiae,  1769, 
that  while  he  had  a  very  considerable  portion  of  Jewish  learning, 
there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  high  attainments  in  Grecian 
literature.  His  being  educated  at  Tarsus,  where,  according  to  Strabo, 
(Geograph.  lib.  xiv.  p.  463,)  there  were  more  celebrated  schools  of 
philosophy  than  at  Athens  or  Alexandria,  will  not  prove  it;  for,  as  is 
observed  by  that  author,  p.  22,  though  a  Jew  in  the  present  day  were 
to  be  born  and  educated  at  Halle,  or  Leipsic,  it  would  not  follow  that 
he  must  have  studied  eloquence,  or  philosophy,  or  mathematics,  under 
any  of  the  professors  in  these  cities.  His  style  furnishes  no  evidence 
of  it;  for  this,  as  is  acknowledged  even  by  Cave,  (Hist.  Liter.,  p.  8,) 
is  pronounced  by  the  ancients  to  be  rough  and  unadorned  ;  and  if  it 
be  a  little  superior  to  that  of  his  fellow-apostles,  it  is  sufficiently  ac- 
counted for  upon  other  principles  by  Thalmannus,  p.  45-47.  It  is 
not  supported  by  what  is  said  of  him  by  Longinus  in  the  Codex  Evan- 
geliorum  Bibliothccae  Vuticanae;  for,  as  is  remarked  by  Fabricius, 
Biblioth.  Graeca,  lib.  iv.  c;ip.  31,  p.  445,  that  fragment  seems  to  have 
been  the  production  of  a  Christian.  And  it  cannot  be  established  by 
his  quoting,  in  a  few  instances,  some  of  the  Grecian  poets.  As  is 
observed  by  Bengclius,  Gnomon  ad  Tit.  i.  12,  he  never  names  Aratus, 
Menander,  or  Epimenides;  and  all  certainly  who  have  picked  up  and 
repeat  sentiments  from  authors,  especially  when  these  sentiments 
have  become  proverbs,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  acquainted  with 
their  writings.  How  many,  for  instance,  of  the  Romans  may  have 
been  able  to  repeat  such  sentences  as  these,  "Homo  sum,  humani 
nihil  a  mealienum  puto;"  "Mors  aequo  pulsat  pede  paupcrum  tabernas 
rcgumque  turres,"  and  yet  never  have  perused  the  writings  of  Terence 
or  Horace?  And.  in  like  manner,  says  Werenfelsius  of  Paul,  (Dis- 
sert, de  Stilo  Nov.  Test.  torn.  i.  Oper.  p.  315,)  "  Potuit  haec  a  Graecis 
conversis  accepissc,  potuerunt  hi  versus,  certc  7ri£ct/ui*v  redolentcs  in 
vulgus  noli  esse."  In  short,  it  was  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Phari- 
sees that  any  of  their  sect  should  study  Grecian  literature.  (See 
Josephus,  Antiq.  Jud.  20.  9;  Talmud  in  Tract.  Mesch.  Solah.  c.  9,  n. 
14;  and  the  Gemara,  on  the  place  where  it  is  announced,  that  "  who- 
soever taught  his  son  the  philosophy  of  the  Greeks  was  to  be  ac- 


170 


LETTERS  OS 


continually  adding  to  his  knowledge,  and  unquestion- 
ably the  same  thing  might  be  useful  to  an  evangelist. 

Nor  will  it  at  all  affect  the  title  of  Timothy  to  be 
considered  as  an  evangelist,  as  Thomas  imagines,  that 
he  is  commanded  "not  to  neglect  the  gift  that  was  in 
him,  which  was  given  him  by  prophecy,  with  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  for  "the  clerk 
of  the  peace,"  says  he,  "might  as  well  make  justices, 
or  captains  make  colonels,"  as  a  court  of  presbyters 
could  make  "an  evangelist."*  Bilson  supposes  that 
Timothy  was  ordained  twice,  first  as  a  presbyter;  and 
if  this  was  done,  as  is  stated,  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  by  a  court 
of  presbyters,  it  proves  that  presbyters  may  ordain 
presbyters;  and  next  as  an  evangelist,  by  the  Apostle 
Paul, for  he  admits  that  he  was  an  evangelist.  "Every 
one,"  says  he,  "by  the  ancient  discipline  of  Christ's 
Church,  before  hee  could  come  from  ministring  to  gov- 
erning in  the  Church  of  God,  received  thrice,  or,  at  the 
least,  twice  imposition  of  hands.  The  like,  if  any  man 
list,  he  may  imagine  of  Timothie,  that  the  good  report 
which  the  brethren  of  Lystra  and  Iconium  gave  of 
him  unto  Paul,  whereupon  hee  would  that  Timothie 
should  goe  foorth,  grew  upon  triall  of  his  faithfull  and 
painfull  service  in  a  former  and  lower  vocation,  for 

cursed.")  Consult  Wagenseil  ad  1.  c.  edit.  Surenhus,  p.  307;  Light- 
foot,  vol.  ii.  p.  TOG;  and  Wetstein  upsn  Acts  vi.  1.  Nor  is  it  any 
objection  to  this,  that  Josephus,  though  a  Pharisee,  acquired  this 
learning,  for  it  was  after  he  had  been  carried  captive  to  Rome,  and 
was  not  under  his  former  restrictions.  And  not  only  has  this  view 
of  the  attainments  of  Paul  been  taken  by  Melancthon,  (Disput.  Orat. 
in  Epist.  ad  Rom.)  by  Grotius,  (Comment  on  1  Cor.  ii.  1,)  by  J.  A. 
Turretine,  (Dissert.  Theolog.  torn.  i.  sec.  11,)  and  by  Ernesti,  (Opusc. 
Crit.  et  Phil.  p.  201  ;)  but,  as  is  proved  by  Thalmannus,  by  Origen 
in  his  Philocal.  c.  15,  by  Chrysostom,  in  his  1st  and  3d  Homilies  on 
the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  he  says  that  Paul  was 
unacquainted  with  Grecian  learning;  and  in  his  4th  Homily  on  the 
2d  Epistle  to  Timothy,  where  he  observes,  "  Hebraicam  tantum  lin- 
guam  calluisse,  Graecam  ignorasse  ;"  and  by  Jerome,  Epist.  ad  Algas, 
qu.  10,  and  Epist.  ad  Hedypiam,  qu.  11.  But  though  he  had  not  that 
measure  of  Grecian  learning  which  has  frequently  been  ascribed  to 
him,  lie  unquestionably  had  a  more  than  ordinary  acquaintance  with 
Jewish  learning,  for  he  profited  in  the  knowledge  of  it,  as  he  tells  us, 
"  above  his  equals ;"  and  he  seems  to  have  laboured  to  increase  it,  by 
reading  whenever  he  had  an  opportunity. 

*  Answer  to  James  Owen  on  Ordination,  p.  17,  18. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


171 


which  hee  had  imposition  of  hands,  and  that  mooved 
Paul  to  take  him  along  with  him,  and  when  hee  saw 
his  time,  to  impose  hands  on  him  for  a  greater  calling. 
For  it  is  not  credible  that  Paul  would  impose  hands 
on  him  at  the  first  step,  to  place  him  in  one  of  the 
highest  degrees,  being  so  young  as  he  was,  without 
good  experience  of  his  sober  and  wise  behaviour  in 
some  other  and  former  function."*  There  appears, 
however,  as  far  as  we  can  judge  from  what  is  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  to  have  been  only  one  ordination 
performed  by  a  court  of  presbyters,  at  which,  if  Paul 
was  present,  and  took  part  in  it,  he  must  have  acted 
only  as  a  presbyter,  and,  as  Daillee  suggests,t  officiated 
as  its  president.  And  certainly,  if  the  Apostles  sat  in 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  along  with  the  presbyters, 
and  assumed  no  more  authority  than  they,  and  issued 
its  decrees  in  the  name  of  the  presbyters  as  well  as 
their  own,  why  might  not  Paul  act  as  a  presbyter 
along  with  other  presbyters  at  the  ordination  of  Timo- 
thy? And  if  an  army,  as  we  know,  have  often  made 
an  emperor,  though  they  were  greatly  his  inferiors; 
and  if  prophets  and  teachers,  or  presbyters,  made 
Barnabas  an  Apostle  at  Antioch,  as  Bishop  Gleig 
acknowledges;  for  "  it  was  after  that,"  he  says,  "that 
he  was  called  an  Apostle;"  it  would  be  exceedingly 
strange  if  a  court  of  presbyters,  guided  by  the  pro- 
phecies which  went  before  respecting  Timothy,  point- 
ing him  out  as  a  fit  person  for  the  high  office  which 
he  was  destined  to  fill,  could  not  ordain  him  to  be  an 
evangelist. 

I  presume  that  no  one  in  the  present  day  will  main- 
tain that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  bishops,  the  first  of 
Ephesus,  and  the  second  of  Crete,  because  they  are  dis- 
tinguished by  these  titles  in  the  postscripts  of  the  Epis- 
tles which  were  addressed  to  them.  Dr.  Mill  admits  that 
these  postscripts  were  added  by  Eustathius,  bishop  of 
Silica,  in  Egypt,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century ;  and 
Home  confesses,  that  whoever  was  the  author,  he  was 
either  grossly  ignorant,  or  grossly  inattentive.  And 

*  Perpctuall  Government,  p.  94. 

t  Sermon  31,  sur  l'Epitre  1.  a  Timothee,  p.  296,  297. 


172 


LETTERS  ON 


it  might  as  consistently  be  asserted,  on  the  authority 
of  the  author  of  the  Scholastic  History,  that  Timothy 
was  Bishop  of  Lystra,  because  he  resided  there  for 
some  time,  and  laboured  in  the  Gospel,  as  that  he  was 
Bishop  of  Ephesus.    If  it  be  urged  with  Downam, 
that,  to  prevent  us  from  imagining  that  what  was  ad- 
dressed to  these  ministers,  "  was  spoken  to  them  as 
extraordinary  persons,  (whose  authority  should  die 
with  them,)  but  to  them  and  their  successors  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  Paul  straightway  chargeth  Timothe, 
that  the  commandements  and  directions  which  he  gave 
him  should  be  kept  inviolable,  (1  Tim.  vi.  13,  14,) 
untill  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
therefore,  by  such  as  should  have  the  like  authority 
unto  the  end;"*  I  reply  with  Stillingfleet,  "this  is 
easily  answered ;  for,  first,  it  is  no  way  certain  what 
this  command  was  which  Paul  speaks  of.    Some  un- 
derstand it,  of  fighting  the  good  fight  of  faith;  others, 
of  the  precept  of  love;  others,  most  probably  the  sum 
of  all  contained  in  this  Epistle  ;  which  I  confesse  im- 
plies in  it,  (as  being  one  great  part  of  the  Epistle,) 
Paul's  directing  of  Timothy  for  the  right  discharg- 
ing of  his  office.    But,  granting  that  the  command  re- 
spects Timothy's  office,  I  answer,  secondly,  it  manifest- 
ly appears  to  be  something  personal,  and  not  suc- 
cessive, or  at  least  nothing  can  be  inferred  for  the  ne- 
cessity of  such  a  succession  from  this  place'which  it 
was  brought  for,  nothing  being  more  evident  than 
that  this  command  related  to  Timothy's  personal  ob- 
servance of  it.    And  therefore,  thirdly,  Christ's  appear- 
ing here  is  not  meant  of  his  second  coming  to  judg- 
ment, but  it  only  imports  the  time  of  Timothy's  de- 
cease.   So  Chrysostom,  pix^  *£        t^tnu  v-txe,*-  *rfi 
tioSov.t    So  Estius  understands  it,  usque  ad  exitum 
vitae,J  and  for  that  end  brings  that  speech  of  Augus- 
tine, Tunc  unicuique  veniet  dies  adventus  Domini, 
cum  venerit  ei  dies,  ut  talis  hie  extat,  qualis  judican- 
dus  est  illo  die.§    And  the  reason  why  the  time  of  his 

*  Sermon  p.  74.  t  "Till  the  end,  till  thy  departure." 

t  "  Till  the  end  of  life." 

§  "  Then  the  day  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  will  arrive  to  each, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


173 


death  is  set  out  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  tra  p.a'Kxov 
avtov  fiityfi^);,  as  Chrysostom,  and  from  him  Theophy- 
lact,  observes,  to  incite  him  the  more  both  to  diligence 
in  his  work,  and  patience  under  sufferings,  from  the 
consideration  of  Christ's  appearance.  The  plain  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  then,  is  the  same  with  that  of  Rev. 
ii.  20,  Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give 
thee  a  crown  of  life.  Nothing,  then,  can  be  hence 
inferred,  as  to  the  necessary  succession  of  some  in 
Timothy's  office,  whatever  it  be  supposed  to  be."* 

And  if  it  be  alleged,  again,  with  Downam,  that 
"their  being  evangelists  did  not  hinder  them  from 
being  bishops,  when  ceasing  from  their  travailling 
about,  they  were  assigned  to  these  particular  church- 
es; and  that  this  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Zuin- 
glius,  who  saith  (in  Ecclesiaste,)  that  Philip  the  Evan- 
gelist, who  had  beene  one  of  the  deacons,  was  after- 
wards Bishop  of  Caesarea;"t  I  answer,  that  if  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  not  made  bishops  till  they  had  ceased 
from  travelling,  then  as,  they  travelled  frequently 
after  they  they  had  performed  what  was  prescribed 
to  them  at  Ephesus  and  in  Crete,  they  could  not, 
even  upon  this  author's  own  showing,  have  been 
bishops  of  either  of  these  places.  Besides,  it  is 
never  stated  in  Scripture  that  any  evangelist  in  his 
old  age  was  assigned  permanently  to  any  particular 
place,  and  reduced  to  the  rank  of  a  diocesan  bishop  ; 
which,  as  Dr.  Barrow  observes,  if  it  were  to  take  place 
in  regard  to  an  Apostle  in  his  old  age,  "  would  be 
such  an  irregularity,  as"  if  any  of  your  bishops,  or  of 
the  humbler  bishops  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians, 
who  now  arrogate  to  their  Church  the  lofty  title  of 
the  Reformed  Apostolic  Catholic  Church  in  Scotland, 
was  in  his  old  age  "  to  be  made  a  deacon  !"X 

when  the  day  shall  come  to  him  on  which  he  will  be  judged  as  he  is 
in  tli is  world,"  referring  probably  to  the  judgment  which  is  spoken 
of,  Hcb.  ix.  27. 

*  Irenicum,  p.  183,  184.    Consult,  too,  Dr.  Whitby  on  the  place, 
t  Defense  of  his  Sermon,  p.  96,  lib.  4. 
t  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  120. 

IWark  is  denominated  by  some  of  the  latter  fathers  first  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  but  it  is  merely  in  accommodation  to  the  sentiments 


174 


LETTERS  ON 


I  have  only  further  to  remark,  with  regard  to  the 
powers  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction,  which  were 
committed  by  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  that  it  will 
by  no  means  entitle  you,  though  you  were  able  to 
prove  that  they  alone  exercised  them  in  Ephesus  and 
Crete,  to  claim  similar  powers  to  any  of  your  bishops. 
Both  of  them  were  of  an  order  very  near  to  that  of 
the  Apostles,  appointed  for  special  and  temporary 
purposes,  and  far  superior  to  diocesan  bishops.  And 
it  would  cetrainly  be  strange  if  the  ministers  of  a 
lower  order,  even  admitting  you  could  shoio  from 
other  passages  that  they  were  instituted  by  Christ, 
should  exercise  powers  belonging  to  a  higher  order, 
without  producing  any  warrant  permitting  them  to 
assume  them  after  that  order  had  ceased,  or  any  evi- 
dence of  their  having  been  allowed  to  exercise  them 
along  with  these  ministers  while  that  order  existed. 
And  it  is  still  more  strange  that  these  powers  should 
be  claimed  for  that  lower  order,  since  you  have  never 
yet  proved  from  other  parts  of  Scripture,  that  it  was 
appointed  by  the  Redeemer,  either  before  or  after  he 
ascended  to  heaven.  And  at  the  same  time  I  would 
observe,  that  it  lias  never  yet  been  demonstrated  that 
Timothy  and  Titus  exercised  these  powers  by  them- 
selves alone,  without  allowing  presbyters  to  unite 
with  them  in  ordination  or  jurisdiction,  or  that,  when 
they  exercised  them  along  with  presbyters,  they  did 
it  in  any  higher  character  than  that  of  presbyters. 
Paul,  indeed,  tells  Timothy  (1  Tim.  v.  22,)  that  he  was 
to  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man;"  and  Titus,  (ch. 
i.  5,)  that  he  had  "  left  him  in  Crete,  that  he  might 
ordain  Presbyters  in  every  city,  as  he  had  appointed 
him."  But  it  no  more  follows  that  either  of  these 
evangelists  was  to  exercise  this  power  alone  in  Ephe- 

about  bishops  which  prevailed  in  their  own  times  ;  for  we  have  un- 
doubted evidence,  that  after  he  founded  that  church,  he  still  retained 
his  office  as  an  evangelist,  travelling  about  and  preaching  the  Gospel, 
and  founding  churches  in  other  places.  It  is  stated  that  he  did  so 
alter  this  in  nearly  the  whole  of  Egypt,  and  in  many  parts  of  Africa, 
by  the  writer  of  the  Synopsis,  ascribed  to  Athanasius ;  by  the  Legend. 
Aut.  cap.  57  ;  by  the  Centur.  Magdeburg,  Cent.  i.  lib.  2,  cap.  10  ;  and 
by  Baronius  in  his  Annals,  torn  i.  p.  695. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


175 


sus  and  Crete,  than  it  would  follow  from  the  words 
of  our  Lord  to  Peter,  (Mat.  xvi.  19,)  "  I  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  that  the 
power  of  which  they  were  the  symbol  was  committed 
exclusively  to  thut.  Jlpostle.  Theophylact  says  of  the 
latter,  "  although  it  is  said  only  to  Peter,  I  will  give 
thee,  yet  the  same  was  given  to  all  the  Apostles." 
And  the.  same  is  the  language  of  many  others  of  the 
fathers,  and  of  all  Protestant  expositors.  Not  a  sin- 
gle instance  of  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  by  one 
individual,  whether  he  was  an  apostle  or  evangelist, 
can  be  produced  from  the  New  Testament;  and  if  it 
was  never  done  even  by  an  apostle,  as  far  as  appears 
from  Scripture,  on  what  ground  are  we  to  believe 
that  it  was  done  by  either  of  these  evangelists?  Be- 
sides, if  presbyters  ordained  an  apostle  at  Antioch,  as 
Bishop  Gleig  admits,  and  if  Timothy  was  ordained  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  it  is 
plain,  as  VVillet  observes,  that  it  "  cannot  be  gathered 
from  these  words,  lay  hands  suddenly  upon  no  man, 
that  Tirnothie  had  this  sole  power  in  himself,  for  the 
Apostle  would  not  give  that  to  him  which  he  did  not 
take  to  himselfe,  who  associated  unto  him  the  rest  of 
the  presbyterie  in  the  ordaining  of  Tirnothie,  1  Tim. 
iv.  14,  but  he  speaketh  to  him  as  the  chiefe."  Nor 
would  Timothy  and  Titus  find  any  difficulty  in  pro- 
curing presbyters,  to  unite  with  them  in  ordaining 
other  presbyters,  since  Paul  had  preached  in  Ephesus 
for  more  than  two  years,  and  had  laid  his  hands 
(Acts  xix.)  on  twelve  men,  who  not  only  spoke  with 
tongues,  but  prophesied,  and  who  having  been  admit- 
ted into  the  ministry,  could  take  part  with  Timothy 
in  ordaining  others;  and  Titus  would  be  assisted  by 
Zenas  and  Apollos,  who  were  with  him  in  Crete,  (Tit. 
iii.  13.)  And  though  the  Apostle  says  to  Timothy, 
(1  Tim.  v.  19,)  "against  a  presbyter  receive  not  an 
accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  it  will 
not  prove  that  he  alone  was  to  judge  of  it.  For,  as 
Willet  again  remarks,  "though  he  speak  by  name  to 
Tirnothie,  directing  his  speech  to  him  as  the  chiefe, 
yet  he  excludeth  not  the  rest,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  writing 


176 


LETTERS  ON 


to  the  angel  and  chiefe  pastors  of  the  seven  Church- 
es, Apoc.  ii.  3,  implyeth  the  rest  of  the  ministers  and 
Church  there,  as  may  appear  by  the  matter  of  the 
Epistles,  wherein  the  faults  of  the  lohole  Church  are 
reproved,  and  their  virtues  commended."  And  says 
Whitaker,  "to  receive  an  accusation  is  to  report  the 
evil  to  the  Church,  and  to  bring  the  culprit  to  judg- 
ment, and  publicly  to  reprove  him,  which  may  be  done 
not  only  by  superiors,  but  by  equals  and  inferiors. 
Thus,  in  the  Roman  Republic  the  knights  sat  in  judg- 
ment not  only  upon  plebeians,  but  upon  senators  and 
patricians."*  We  know,  too,  that  presbyters  exer- 
cised jurisdiction  along  with  Timothy  at  Ephesns,  for 
Paul  speaks  of  them  (1.  Tim.  v.  13,)  as  "  worthy  of 
double  honour  because  they  ruled  well,  especially  if 
they  laboured  in  the  word  and  doctrine."  And  they 
are  represented  as  exercising  the  same  power  among 
the  Thessalonians,  (1  Thes.  v.  12,  13,)  and  Hebrews, 
(Hebrews  xiii.  7.)  And  it  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the 
qualifications  of  the  bishop  or  presbyter  whom  Timo- 
thy was  to  ordain  at  Ephesus,  that  he  must  be  "blame- 
less, one  that  ruled  ivell  his  own  house;  for  if  he 
knows  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how  should  he 
take  care  of  the  Church  of  God?"  or,  as  Dr.  Ham- 
mond paraphrases  the  words.  "  he  would  be  unfit  to 
be  made  a  governor  of  the  Church  of  God."  And 
says  Paul  to  Titus,  "a  bishop"  or  presbyter  "must be 
blameless  as  the  steward  of  God,"  or,  as  the  same 
commentator  paraphrases  it,  "as  becomes  one  that 
hath  the  government  of  God's  family  entrusted  to 
him."  But  if  presbyters  were  associated  with  evan- 
gelists in  jurisdiction  as  well  as  ordination,  (and  they 
would  not  otherwise  be  represented  as  governing  the 
Church,)  you  have  no  right  to  assert  that  these 
powers  were  exercised  exclusively  by  the  latter.  If 
presbyters,  too,  were  permitted  to  share  in  them  then, 
when  that  order  existed,  they  must  retain  them  still 
when  that  order  has  ceased,  as  government  must  al- 
ways continue  in  the  Church,  and  they  alone  remain, 

*  Accusationem  admitterc,  Sec.    Controv.  4,  quaest.  1,  cap.  2. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


177 


while  the  former  have  ceased  to  exercise  them  along 
with  them.  And  as  you  have  failed  to  prove  that 
diocesan  bishops  existed  at  that  time,  in  the  early- 
Church,  or  were  permitted,  like  presbyters,  to  unite 
with  evangelists  in  ordination  or  jurisdiction,  they  can 
have  no  right  at  hast  from  divine  institution  to 
exercise  these  powers  in  the  present  day;  and  "the 
main  erection  of  Episcopacy"  having  failed,  I  leave  it 
to  candid  judges  to  say,  whether  you  and  your  follow- 
ers, instead  of  telling  us  that  out  of  your  churches 
there  is  no  salvation,  would  not  act  a  wiser  and  more 
consistent  part,  if  you  were  to  confess  with  Bilson, 
"  that  though  bishops  may  found  their  claims  on  the 
custome  of  the  Church,"  which  I  shall  by  and  by 
examine,  "  on  any  divine  precept  expressed  in  Scrip- 
ture they  cannot."* 

I  am,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  "  It  is  doubtful,"  says  Salmeron,  though  a  Roman  Catholic, 
(Disput.  1.  on  1  Tim.)  "  if  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus ;  for  al- 
though he  preached  and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry  there,  it  does 
not  tbllow  that  he  was  the  bishop  of  that  place ;  for  Paul  preached 
there  above  two  years,  and  absolved  the  penitents,  and  yet  he  icas  no 
bishop.  Add,  that  now  and  then  the  Apostle  called  him  away  unto 
himself,  and  sent  him  from  Rome  to  the  Hebrews  witli  his  Epistle. 
And  in  the  second  Epistle  he  commands  him  to  come  unto  him 
shortly.  Timothy  was  also  an  evangelist  of  that  order;  Eph.  iv.  He 
gave  some  Apostles,  some  evangelists,"  &c.  So  that  Dorolheus  says 
in  his  Synopis,  "  that  Timothy  preached  through  all  Greece,  but  stay- 
ed at  Ephesus,  not  to  be  bishop,  but  that  in  the  constituted  Church  of 
Ephesus  he  might  oppose  the  false  Apostles.  It  appears,  therefore, 
that  he  was  more  than  a  bishop,  although  for  a  time  he  preached  in 
that  city  as  a  pastor,  and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry.  Hence  it  is 
that  some  call  him  Bishop  of  Ephesus." 


12 


178 


LETTER  XIII. 

Examination  of  the  argument  for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  from  the  Angels  of 
the  seven  Asiatic  Churches. —  Refutation  of  it  as  staled  by  Milner,  who 
would  restrict  the  superintendence  exercised  by  bishops  to  ten  or  twelve 
congregations,  a  plan  which  would  create  in  England  a  thousand  diocesan 
bishops. — Refutation  of  it  as  slated  by  Bishop  Gleig,  who  represents  these 
Angels  as  single  individuals  and  prelates. — The  name  Angel  borrowed 
from  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  who  had  no  authority 
over  other  synagogues,  and  was  not  the  sole  or  chief  ruler  of  his  own  syna- 
gogue.— Remarkable  blunder  of  Bishop  Russel  respecting  the  Angel  of 
the  synagogue  and  its  other  officers,  for  which  he  is  praised  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Sinclair. — If  the  Angels  of  the  Churches  were  single  persons,  no 
evidence  that  they  were  diocesan  bishops. — Three  arguments  to  prove 
that  they  were  not  single  individuals,  but  representatives  of  the  whole 
ministersof  the  different  Churches,  as  each  of  the  stars  mentioned  in  Rev.i. 
represented  the  whole  of  the  ministers  of  each  of  the  Churches,  who  shed 
their  united  light  on  the  members. — Striking  remarks  of  Lord  Bacon  on 
the  unprecedented  powers  vested  in  bishops,  and  on  their  being  allowed 
to  exercise  some  of  them,  w  ithout  any  appeal,  by  lay-chancellors. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  last  argument  in  support  of 
diocesan  Episcopacy,  which  has  been  advanced  by 
the  advocates  of  your  ecclesiastical  polity,  has  been 
taken  from  the  angels  of  the  seven  Asiatic  Churches. 
And  certainly,  if  its  strength  corresponded  to  the  con- 
fidence with  which  it  has  been  stated,  at  least  by 
some  of  these  writers,  it  would  be  perfectly  irresistible. 
And  there  is  none  of  them  who  has  mentioned  it  with 
more  of  that  feeling,  as  if  it  could  not  be  controverted, 
than  even  the  excellent  Milner.  Having  been  accus- 
tomed to  Episcopacy  from  his  earliest  days,  and 
imagining  that  it  was  indispensable  to  the  order  and 
well-being  of  the  Christian  Church,  he  talks  of  this 
argument  and  of  the  system  which  he  rests  upon  it,  in 
the  following  terms: 

"  Toward  the  end  of  the  first  century,  all  the 
Churches  followed  the  model  of  the  mother  Church  of 
Jerusalem,  where  one  of  the  Apostles  was  the  first 
bishop.  A  settled  presidency  obtained,  and  the  name 
of  angel  was  first  given  to  the  supreme  ruler,  though 
that  of  bishop  soon  succeeded.  That  this  was  the  case 
with  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  is  certain.  The 
address  of  the  charges  to  him  in  the  Book  of  the  Reve- 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


179 


lation  demonstrates  his  superiority."  After  which 
he  adds,  "  Could  it  be  conveniently  done,  it  may  per- 
haps be  true,  that  a  reduced  Episcopacy,  in  which  the 
dioceses  are  of  small  extent,  as  those  in  the  primitive 
Church  undoubtedly  were,  and  in  which  the  president 
residing  in  the  metropolis  exercises  a  superintendency 
over  ten  or  twelve  presbyters  of  the  same  city  and 
neighbourhood,  would  bid  the  fairest  to  promote  order, 
peace,  and  harmony."* 

Now,  upon  this  I  would  remark,  that  it  is  certainly 
surprising  he  should  have  believed  the  fable  which 
has  been  already  refuted,  about  one  of  the  Apostles 
having  become  bishop  of  Jerusalem;  though  it  must 
be  evident  to  any  one  who  is  at  all  acquainted  with 
ecclesiastical  history,  that  with  all  his  piety  he  is  some- 
times too  credulous.  Such  a  descent  from  the  office 
of  an  Apostle,  whose  diocese  was  the  world,  Mat. 
xxviii.  19,  to  that  of  a  bishop,  whose  diocese  was  to 
be  Jerusalem,  as  Jewel  observes,  would  have  been 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  command  of  Christ,  and 
would  have  been  as  extraordinary,  as  Dr.  Barrow 
remarks,  as  if  the  King  of  Great  Britain  were  to 
become  Lord  Mayor  of  London.  Besides,  it  is  not 
supported  by  any  testimony  which  is  worthy  of  belief, 
and  which  could  warrant  him  to  employ  it  as  the 
basis  of  an  argument ;  and  I  shall  by  and  by  endeavour 
to  show  that  his  other  assertion,  "  that  toward  the  end 
of  the  first  century  all  the  Churches  followed  the  mo- 
del of  the  mother  Church  of  Jerusalem,"  and  had  dio- 
cesan bishops,  is  equally  unfounded.  Writers  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  might  call  these  early  minis- 
ters bishops,  according  to  the  custom  of  their  own 
times,  but  no  historical  evidence  can  be  produced  of 
their  exercising  the  powers  of  your  bishops;  and  as 
has  already  been  stated,  not  a  father  can  be  mentioned 
from  the  first  three  centuries  who  even  denominates 
Timothy  or  Titus  a  bishop.  I  would  further  notice, 
that  as  he  does  not  attempt  to  prove,  but  merely 
affirms,  that  the  charges  to  the  angels  demonstrate 
their  superiority  to  the  other  ministers  of  the  Asiatic 


*  Vol.  i.  p.  161,  1G2. 


ISO 


LETTERS  ON 


Churches,  I  shall  pass  them  over  at  present,  and  con- 
sider them  afterwards  as  they  are  referred  to  by 
another  of  the  defenders  of  Episcopacy.  And  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  dioceses  which  he  would  assign  to 
bishops  in  the  present  day,  I  would  briefly  observe, 
that  while  none  of  these  angels,  admitting  them,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  to  be  diocesan  bishops,  would 
have  under  his  care  the  ministers  of  ten  or  twelve  of 
the  neighbouring  churches,  a  proposal  to  reduce  the 
bishoprics  of  your  Church  within  similar  limits,  and 
to  oblige  your  prelates  to  preach,  and  to  restrict  their 
dioceses  to  ten  or  twelve  parishes,  is  a  measure  of 
reform,  which,  though  it  assimilate  them  more  nearly 
to  the  primitive  bishops,  would  call  forth  feelings  of 
the  greatest  consternation  throughout  the  whole  of 
your  Establishment.  Archbishop  Usher,  you  are 
aware,  brought  it  forward  formerly,  and  it  did  not 
succeed,  and  it  is  less  likely  to  be  accepted  if  it  were 
to  be  brought  forward  at  present.  In  the  diocese  of 
Lincoln,  in  place  of  one  you  would  have  nearly  a 
hundred  bishops;  and  throughout  the  whole  of  your 
dioceses  they  would  amount  to  a  thousand.  Your 
bishops  would  cease,  as  in  other  Protestant  countries, 
to  be  spiritual  lords,  for  they  would  outnumber  the 
peers;  or  they  would  sit  in  the  Legislature  by  a  few 
representatives  chosen  from  among  themselves ;  or, 
as  others  might  prefer,  they  would  be  represented 
both  in  the  Lords  and  Commons,  (and  the  privilege 
might  be  extended  to  other  Protestant  Churches,)  by 
some  intelligent  and  experienced  members  of  your 
communion,  chosen,  like  the  representatives  of  your 
three  Universities,  by  your  bishops  and  dignitaries, 
and  a  select  number  of  your  inferior  clergy.*    But  it 

*  "  I  have  heard,"  says  the  author  of  a  pamphlet  published  in  1641, 
"  that  divers  abbots  voted  in  Parliament  as  anciently  as  bishops.  Yea 
this  answerer  hath  informed  me  that  anciently  the  bishops  were 
assisted  in  Parliament,"  before  it  was  divided,  "  by  a  number  of  mitred 
abbots  and  priors;"  p.  33.  And  Sir  Edward  Coke  informs  us  in  his 
Commentary  on  Littleton's  Institutes,  sec.  138,  that  "he  found  in 
the  Parliament  rolls  twenty-seven  abbots  and  two  priors."  In  all 
causes  affecting  the  Church  which  come  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Denmark,  two  bishops  are  now  allowed  to  sit  in  that  court.  In 
all  other  causes  they  are  not  permitted  to  judge. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


181 


is  obviously  unnecessary  to  speculate  on  these  matters, 
as  such  a  proposal  as  is  thrown  out  by  Mr.  Milner 
will  never  be  entertained.  And  yet  it  is  upon  this 
ground  alone  that  he  pleads  for  Episcopacy;  for,  as  it 
exists  in  your  Church  with  all  the  overwhelming 
duties  of  your  dioceses,  and  the  secular  duties  which 
devolve  on  your  bishops,  the  superintendence  which 
they  exercise  must  in  a  great  measure  be  nominal. 

Bishop  Gleig  however  contends,  like  most  Episco- 
palians, that  the  angels  of  these  churches  were  single 
persons,  acting,  not  as  Dr.  Campbell  of  Aberdeen  had 
supposed,  as  the  moderators  of  the  presbyteries  belong- 
ing to  the  churches,  but  in  their  individual  capacity; 
and  he  thinks  it  plain,  both  from  the  name  bestowed 
on  them,  and  the  duties  required  from  them,  that  they 
were  diocesan  bishops.  "  Had  Dr.  Campbell,"  says 
he,  "taken  the  trouble  to  search  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  on  this  occasion,  and  to  compare  Scrip- 
ture with  Scripture,  he  would  very  soon  have  found 
that  the  application  of  the  name  ayyt^ofto  a  person  in 
the  ministry  or  priesthood  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to 
the  mysterious  book  of  the  Apocalyse.  Thus  (Mai. 
ii.  7,)  the  Jewish  high-priest  is  by  the  Seventy  called 
ayytxoi  Kugtou  7tavtoxgato£os ;  and  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epis- 
tle to  the  Galatians,  says,  "  that  he  was  received  by 
them  as  an  angel  of  God."  Now,  as  the  Jewish  high- 
priest,  compared  with  the  other  priests  and  Levites, 
was  certainly  much  more  than  a  mere  chairman,  and 
as  no  man  will  pretend  that  in  the  Churches  of  Gala- 
tia,  St.  Paul  was  only  the  first  among  his  own  order, 
is  it  not  natural  to  infer  that  the  angels  of  the  seven 
Churches  were  likewise  something  more  than  mere 
chairmen  or  moderators,  especially  as  the  charges 
given  to  them  cannot  be  reconciled  with  equity  upon 
the  hypothesis  advanced  by  Dr.  Campbell?  If  indeed 
they  were  vested  with  the  authority  which  the  Apostle 
gave  to  Timothy  and  Titus  over  the  Churches  of  Crete 
and  Ephesus;  if  they  had  each  a  right  to  take  cogni- 
sance of  heretical  doctrine,  to  admonish  the  heretic, 
and,  in  case  of  pertinacity,  to  reject  him  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church;  if  they  only  had  authority  to 


1S2 


LETTERS  0>" 


ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  in  the  several  cities  of 
Asia;  if  they  were  enjoined  not  to  admit  any  man  to 
the  order  of  deacons  till  after  competent  trial,  nor  to 
ordain  an  elder  or  presbyter  till  after  he  had  acquitted 
himself  well  in  the  deaconship;  if  they  were  autho- 
rized to  receive  accusations  against  presbyters,  and  to 
rebuke  them  before  all  when  found  guilty  5  if  such 
were  the  powers  of  the  Asiatic  angels  of  the  Churches, 
and  such  their  duty  resulting  from  those  powers,  then 
indeed,  but  not  otherwise,  were  the  orthodox  and 
virtuous  angels  of  the  Churches  of  Pergamos  and 
Thyatira  properly  reproved  for  suffering  to  be  taught 
under  their  jurisdiction  the  doctrines  of  the  Nicolai- 
tanes,  of  Balaam,  and  of  Jezebel."* 

But  upon  this  statement  of  the  argument,  (and  I 
have  selected  it  as  one  which  was  greatly  praised 
soon  after  it  was  published,  and  as  one  of  the  most 
plausible  which  I  have  met  with,)  I  would  beg  to 
submit  the  following  observations: 

No  argument  can  be  founded  on  the  term  angels  as 
applied  to  the  ministers  of  these  Churches,  to  show 
that  they  were  invested  with  jurisdiction  over  the  rest 
of  the  ministers,  and  the  instances  to  which  the  bishop 
refers  in  proof  of  this  are  not  in  point.  It  is  not  of 
the  high-priest,  as  he  alleges,  that  Malachi  says,  ch.  ii. 
7,  that  "  the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and 
the  people  should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth,  for  he 
was  the  messenger"  or  angel  "of  the  Lord  of  Hosts," 
but  of  every  priest ;  and  it  is  astonishing  that  a  man 
who  was  lauded  for  his  high  professional  attainments 
by  his  brother  prelates,  and  especially  for  this  article, 
should  not  have  seen  it.  Lowth  accordingly  remarks 
on  the  passage,  "  As  it  was  the  priests'  duty  to  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  law,  so  the  people  were 
required  to  resort  to  them  for  instruction  in  any  diffi- 
culty that  arose  concerning  the  sense  of  it;  see  Lev. 
x.  11,  Deut.  xxii.  9.  For  this  reason  the  Levites  had 
forty -eight  cities  allotted  to  them  among  the  several 
tribes,  that  the  people  might  more  easily  consult  them 
upon  every  occasion.  See  Numb.  xxxv.  7."  Besides, 

*  Anti-Jacobin  Review,  vol.  ix. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


183 


if  it  had  been  the  high-priest  who  was  meant,  it  would 
not  have  served  the  bishop's  purpose,  for  he  had  no 
jurisdiction  over  the  other  priests ;  and  though  pre- 
sident of  the  Sanhedrim,  he  had  only  his  casting  vote, 
and  was  even  himself  subject  to  their  authority.  And 
when  Paul  says  to  the  Galatians,  ch.  iv.  14,  that  they 
had  "  received  him"  at  first  "as  an  angel  of  God,"  he 
surely  never  intended  to  tell  them  that  they  had  received 
him  as  a  bishop!  for  he  was  far  higher  than  a  bishop, 
but  as  if  he  had  been  really  a  messenger  sent  to  them 
immediately  from  the  heavenly  ivorld,  just  as  he  says, 
ch.  i.  8, "  But  though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  (sure- 
ly not  a  bishop)  preach  any  other  Gospel  to  you  let  him 
be  accursed."  And  certainly  it  is  impossible  to  see 
any  thing  in  the  term  angel  itself  which  is  applied  to 
these  ministers,  or  in  the  corresponding  term  of  stars 
which  is  employed  respecting  them,  or  in  what  is  said 
of  them  in  the  latter  character,  (ch.  i.  20,)  which 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  they  were  superior  to 
the  other  ministers  of  these  churches,  or  had  any  juris- 
diction over  them.  Every  other  minister  of  these 
Asiatic  Churches  who  preached  the  Gospel,  and  who 
shed  spiritual  light  on  the  minds  of  the  members,  had 
as  good  a  title  to  the  metaphorical  name  of  an  angel 
who  brought  the  message  of  reconciliation,  and  every 
one  of  them  who  communicated  that  light  to  the  name 
of  a  star,  as  a  diocesan  bishop  ;  and  compared  at  least 
to  modern  prelates,  who  seldom  preach,  he  had  a  pre- 
ferable claim.  And  I  cannot  believe  that  it  was  pre- 
lates alone,  whom,  as  the  stars  of  these  churches,  the 
Redeemer  held  in  his  right  hand  to  protect  and  defend 
them,  any  more  than  that  it  was  they  alone  who  were 
angels  or  messengers,  because  it  ivas  to  them  alone 
that  he  had  committed  the  message  of  salvation. 
Such  is  the  view  which  is  given  of  these  terms  by 
some  of  the  more  candid  Episcopalians,  and  in  par- 
ticular by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  a  man  who  had.  few  equals 
in  scriptural  knowledge  and  Jewish  learning;  and  if 
he  be  right  in  his  account  of  the  source  from  which 
the  first  of  these  terms  was  taken  and  applied  to  the 
ministers  of  Christian  churches,  it  overthrows  the 


184 


LETTERS  ON 


argument  which  has  been  founded  on  it,  for  any  thing 
like  superiority  on  the  part  of  the  angels  of  the  Asia- 
tic churches  over  the  rest  of  the  ministers  of  these 
churches.  "  Besides  these,"  (the  three  rulers  of  the 
synagogue,)  says  he,  "  there  was  the  public  minister 
of  the  synagogue,  who  prayed  publicly,  and  took  care 
about  the  reading  of  the  law,  and  sometimes  preached, 
if  there  were  not  others  to  discharge  that  office.  This 
person  was  called  Sheliach  Zibbor,  the  angel  of  the 
church,  and  the  Chazan  or  bishop  of  the  congregation. 
Certainly  the  signification  of  the  word  bishop  and 
angel  of  the  church  had  been  determined  with  less 
noise,  if  recourse  had  been  made  to  the  proper  foun- 
tains, and  men  had  not  vainly  disputed  about  the 
meaning  of  words,  taken  I  know  not  whence.  The 
service  and  worship  of  the  Temple  being  abolished, 
as  being  ceremonial,  God  transplanted  the  worship 
and  public  adoration  of  God  used  in  the  synagogues, 
which  was  moral,  into  the  Christian  Church ;  to  wit, 
the  public  ministry,  public  prayers,  reading  God's 
word,  and  preaching,  &c.  Hence  the  names  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  were  the  very  same,  the 
angel  of  the  church,  and  the  bishop  which  belonged 
to  the  ministers  in  the  synagogues."*  As  the  She- 
liach Zibbor,  then,  or  angel,  or  bishop  of  the  syna- 
gogue, had  no  authority  beyond  the  single  congre- 
gation in  which  he  ministered,  and  as  he  exercised 
that  authority  along  with  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue, 
(though  he  was  not  the  chief  ruler,)t  it  is  plain  that 

*  Vol.  ii.  of  his  Works,  p.  133. 

t  Bishop  Russel,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Historical  Evidence  for 
Episcopacy,  p.  31,  attempts  to  construct  an  argument  for  that  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity,  from  the  term  angel  of  the  churches,  but  blun- 
ders exceedingly  respecting  the  place  of  the  Sheliach  Zibbor  in  the 
Jewish  synagogue,  as  well  as  of  the  other  officers.  And  yet  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Sinclair,  in  his  Dissertation  on  Episcopacy,  p.  43,  says  that  he 
coincides  with  him,  and  that  "  on  all  questions  connected  with  Jew- 
ish antiquity,  the  Bishop's  views  must  be  acknowledged  of  the  highest 
authority."  "  This  mode  of  phraseology,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked," 
says  Dr.  Russel,  "  is  borrowed  from  the  usages  of  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue, where  the  person  who  presided  in  divine  worship,  usually 
called  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  was  not  unfrequently  denominated 
the  angel  of  the  congregation.  He  had  under  him,  also,  two  classes 
of  ministers,  corresponding  to  the  priest  and  deacon  of  the  Christian 


PITSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


185 


the  application  of  the  name  angel  to  the  minister  of 
each  of  these  Asiatic  churches,  even  supposing  him 
to  be  only  a  single  person  acting  on  his  own  individual 
capacity,  furnishes  no  proof  that  he  had  authority 
over  the  ministers  of  other  congregations  or  Chris- 
tian synagogues,  and  much  less  would  it  justify  any 
bishop  in  the  present  day  for  being  invested  with 
authority  over  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  ministers, 
and  as  many  congregations. 

As  to  the  censure  which  is  pronounced  on  some  of 
the  angels  for  suffering  false  teachers,  and  their  being 
enjoined  to  pursue  a  different  course,  it  remains  to  be 
proved,  that  the  acts  which  they  were  blamed  for  not 
performing,  and  which  they  were  commanded  to  per- 
form afterwards,  were  acts  of  jurisdiction.  And  though 
this  should  be  allowed,  it  will  by  no  means  follow 
that  these  angels  might  not  have  been  the  moderators 
of  the  presbyteries  of  these  churches,  and  that  letters 
might  not  be  addressed  to  them,  as  in  the  present  day, 

assemblies;  and,  in  other  respects,  there  are  so  many  points  of  resem- 
blance, as  to  remove  all  doubt  that  the  ecclesiastical  model  recom- 
mended by  the  Apostles  was  raised  upon  the  platform  of  the  Lcvitical 
establishment." 

Now,  upon  this  I  beg  to  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  syna- 
gogue was  not  a  part  of  the  Levitical  establishment,  but  was  intro- 
duced afterwards,  so  that  in  the  Bishop's  argument  there  is  evidently 
a  non-sequitur,  there  being  something  in  the  conclusion  which  is  not 
in  the  premises,  idly,  It  will  surprise  the  reader  to  learn,  after  the 
encomium  pronounced  on  Dr.  Russel  by  Mr.  Sinclair,  that  though 
there  were  three  rulers  in  every  synagogue,  none  of  them  was  ever 
called  the  angel  of  the  synagogue,  or  its  bishop,  but  they  v/ere  entirely 
distinct  from  that  minister,  as  every  one  knows  who  has  directed  his 
attention  to  Hebrew  antiquities!  See  Dr.  Lightfoot;  Godwin's  Moses 
and  Aaron,  p.  71.  Home,  in  his  Introduction,  vol.  iii.  p.  242,  says, 
■*  Next  to  the  Ag^io-uv^yay,;,  or  ruler  of  the  congregation,  was  an  offi- 
cer, whose  province  it  was  to  offer  up  public  prayers  to  God  for  the 
whole  congregation:  hence  he  is  called  Sheliach  Zibbor,  the  angel  of 
the  church,  because,  as  their  messenger,  he  spoke  to  God  for  them." 
His  other  duties  arc  described  by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  also  represents 
him  as  next  to  the  rulers,  or  to  the  chief  ruler.  And,  in  the  third 
place,  so  far  were  there  from  being  "  two  classes  of  ministers"  under 
him,  corresponding  to  presbyters  and  deacons,  there  was  only  one, 
according  to  Home,  who  had  the  charge  of  the  sacred  books;  or, 
according  to  Lightfoot,  (who  does  not  mention  that  officer,)  three 
deacons,  two  of  whom  collected  the  alms  for  the  poor,  and  the  third 
distributed  them. 


1S6 


LETTERS  ON 


as  the  chairmen  or  representatives  of  these  presbyte- 
ries, expressive  either  of  censure  or  approbation,  which 
they  were  to  communicate  to  the  presbyters;  for,  as 
was  long  ago  remarked  by  an  old  writer,  "why  may 
not  the  Senate  be  saluted  in  the  Consuls,  Parliament 
addressed  in  the  Chancellor,  or  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  an  epistle  to  the  Speaker?"*  But  as  I  do  not 
consider  them  as  acting  in  their  individual  capacity, 
either  as  the  moderators  of  their  presbyteries,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Campbell's  hypothesis,  or  as  diocesan  bish- 
ops, the  objection  which  has  been  urged  against  them 
in  the  former  character,  though  it  had  possessed  a 
force  of  which  I  conceive  it  to  be  destitute,  would  not 
apply  to  my  opinion.  And  as  to  the  assertion  of  the 
Bishop,  that  these  angels  must  have  been  authorised 
to  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
notice  it,  as  not  a  word  is  said  in  any  of  the  Epistles 
respecting  the  exercise  of  such  powers  by  any  of  these 
ministers. 

I  would  farther  remark,  that  "  the  titles  of  angels 
and  stars,"  so  far  from  denoting  "single  men,"  as 
Archbishop  Potter  maintains,t  "  which,"  he  thinks, 
"  puts  it  beyond  dispute"  that  they  were  bishops, 
appear  to  be  intended  to  represent  the  whole  of  the 
ministers  of  these  early  churches.  Such  was  the 
opinion  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Henry  More,  who  says, 
"  Methinks  it  is  extremely  harsh  to  conceit  that  these 
seven  stars  are  merely  the  seven  bishops  of  any  par- 
ticular churches  of  Asia,  as  if  the  rest  were  not  sup- 
ported or  guided  by  the  hand  of  Christ;  or  as  if  there 
were  but  seven  in  his  right  hand,  but  all  the  rest  in  his 
left.  Such  high  representations  cannot  be  appropria- 
ted to  any  seven  particular  churches  whatsover." 
"  And  by  the  angels,"  he  says,  "  according  to  the 
Apocalyptick  style,  all  the  angels  under  their  presi- 
dency are  represented  or  insinuated. "J  And  this 
opinion  is  confirmed  when  we  look  into  the  epistles 
which  were  addressed  to  these  angels,  and  into  the 

*  Principal  Forrester  on  Episcopacy,  p.  73. 

+  Church  Government,  p.  147. 

t  Exposition  of  the  Seven  Churches,  Works,  p.  724. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


187 


first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Revelation.  Each  of 
these  ministers  is  represented,  indeed,  in  the  singular 
number,  as  a  star  and  an  angel.  But  each  of  the 
seven  churches  is  represented  also  in  the  singular 
number,  chap.  i.  20,  as  one  candlestick  with  different 
branches,  shedding  light  around  them,  in  the  cities 
where  they  were  placed,  though  as  Sclater  thinks  he 
has  proved  in  his  Original  Draught  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  and  as  Episcopalians  in  general  affirm,  it 
was  composed,  at  least,  of  several  congregations. 
But  if  each  of  the  candlesticks  represented  the  ivhole 
of  the  congregations  in  the  city,  which  formed  toge- 
ther one  Church,  why  may  it  not  be  supposed  that 
with  equal  propriety  the  whole  of  their  ministers  may 
be  described  as  forming  one  star,  the  different  parts 
of  which,  combined  in  one  great  luminous  body,  dis- 
pensed those  rays  of  spiritual  light  which  illuminated 
these  congregations,  and  that  the  ivhole  of  their  min- 
isters were  represented  by  one  angel  or  messenger, 
as  they  all  delivered  the  same  message  of  salvation 
to  guilty  men?  And  if  there  be  any  difficulty  in 
conceiving  that  one  angel  should  represent  the  whole 
of  the  ministers  of  the  congregations  in  each  of  these 
cities,  as  they  would  amount  probably  to  four  or  six, 
we  have  only  to  turn  to  the  14th  chapter  of  this  very 
book,  v.  6,  where  John  tells,  that  "  he  saw  another 
angel  flying  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  having  the  ever- 
lasting Gospel  to  preach  unto  them  that  dwell  on  the 
earth,  and  to  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people;"  which  angel  represents  not  merely  a 
single  minister,  though  the  term  literally  denotes, 
like  each  of  the  angels  of  the  churches,  a  single 
individual,  but  thousands  of  ?}iinisters.  Since  it  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  each  of  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches  may  possibly  be  intended  to  represent  the 
whole  of  the  ministers  of  the  congregations  which 
were  connected  with  it;  and  since  it  is  as  probable 
that  this  was  the  case,  as  that  each  of  the  candlesticks 
represented  perhaps  four  or  six  congregations  forming 
that  Church,  it  is  proper  that  we  should  examine  the 
epistles  themselves,  and  ascertain  whether  the  angels 


188 


LETTERS  ON 


are  to  be  considered  as  addressed  in  their  individual 
capacity  as  diocesan  bishops,  or  as  representing  the 
whole  of  the  ministers  of  these  churches.  And  that 
the  latter  is  the  character  in  which  we  are  to  view 
them,  will  appear,  I  apprehend,  from  the  following 
considerations: 

In  the  first  place,  if  the  angels  are  addressed  only 
as  single  individuals,  and  not  as  the  representatives  of 
the  whole  of  the  ministers  of  the  different  churches, 
then  the  rest  of  the  ministers  are  never  referred  to  at 
all.  Now,  this  certainly  would  be  a  strange  omission 
in  epistles  descriptive  of  the  state  of  the  churches, 
when  you  consider  their  number  as  contrasted  with 
a  single  diocesan  bishop,  and  their  corresponding  in- 
fluence on  the  members  of  the  churches  for  good  or 
evil.  In  Ephesus,  especially,  the  church  seems  to 
have  been  large  from  its  very  commencement,  for  the 
value  of  the  magical  books  burnt  by  its  members  is 
said  to  have  been  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver.  And 
at  the  time  of  Paul's  last  visit  to  them  they  had  a 
number  of  presbyters,  whom  he  calls  upon  to  perform 
the  duty  of  bishops;  (Acts  xx.  22.)  Nor  were  they 
the  bishops  or  presbyters  of  the  neighbouring  church- 
es, as  some  have  affirmed,  for,  as  Dr.  Whitby  observes, 
on  Acts  xx.  1 7,  this  is  plainly  contrary  to  the  text. 
And  as  he  farther  says,  "  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome, 
Theodoret,  CCcumenius  and  Theophylact  knew  no- 
thing of  Paul's  sending  to  any  other  bishops  besides 
those  of  Ephesus;  for  otherwise  they  could  not  have 
argued,  as  they  do  from  this  place,  that  these  persons 
could  not  be  bishops,  properly  so  called,  because 
there  could  be  only  one  bishop  in  one  city."  And 
if  such  was  the  number  of  the  presbyters  in  that 
Church  at  that  early  period,  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  it  would  be  still  greater  at  the  time  when 
this  epistle  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  was  addressed 
to  the  angel.  If  the  angel,  however,  did  not  represent 
these  numerous  presbyters,  or  the  whole  of  the  minis- 
ters and  was  merely  a  single  person  like  a  diocesan 
bishop,  then  they  are  never  noticed  for  good  or  evil  in 
this  Epistle,  though  their  conduct  must  have  had  a  far 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACV. 


189 


more  powerful  influence  than  that  of  the  bishop.  And 
this  is  the  more  unaccountable,  that  it  is  asserted  by- 
Episcopalians  the  people  are  noticed  in  two  of  the 
Epistles,  while  not  a  word  is  said  in  any  of  them  re- 
specting the  presbyters. 

2</ly,  If  the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  be  ad- 
dressed as  a  single  person,  and  not  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  whole  of  the  ministers,  is  it  not  farther  in- 
explicable, that  because  he  alone  had  left  his  first 
love,  the  Redeemer  threatens,  if  he  did  not  repent,  to 
extinguish  that  church,  or  remove  its  candlestick  out 
of  its  place?  And  this  is  still  more  surprising,  if 
Timothy,  who  according  to  Pererius  and  Alcazar,  was 
then  alive,  was  the  bishop  or  angel  of  that  church. 
But  if  the  angel  represented  not  merely  a  single  pre- 
late, but  the  whole  of  the  numerous  ministers  of  that 
church,  and  if  all  of  them  had  sunk  into  that  grievous 
state  of  spiritual  declension  which  is  described  in  the 
Epistle,  and  if  the  people,  as  is  probable,  followed 
their  example,  we  can  perceive  a  reason  for  such  a 
denunciation.  I  infer,  therefore,  from  this  circum- 
stance that  the  angel  could  not  possibly  be  a  single 
person  ;  but  must  be  addressed  as  the  representative 
of  the  whole  of  the  ministers  of  that  early  church. 

And  in  the  third  place,  no  one  can  look  into  the 
Epistles  to  the  angels  of  the  Churches  in  Smyrna  and 
Thyatira,  without  perceiving  that  they  address  them 
sometimes  in  the  singular,  and  sometimes  in  the  plural, 
which  is  incompatible  with  the  idea  that  the  angels 
were  intended  to  represent  only  single  persons  like 
diocesan  bishops.  Thus,  the  Redeemer  says  to  the 
angel  of  the  former  Church,  "  I  know  thy  works,  and 
tribulation,  and  poverty,  but  thou  art  rich.  Fear  none 
of  those  things  which  thou  shalt  suffer:  behold,  the 
devil  shall  cast  some  of  you  (ifiuv)  into  prison,  that  ye 
may  be  tried;  and  ye  shall  have  tribulation  ten  days: 
be  thou  faithful  unto  the  death,  and  I  will  give  thee 
a  crown  of  life."  And  he  says  to  the  angel  of  the 
Church  in  Thyatira,  "  I  know  thy  works,  and  charity, 
and  service,  and  faith,  and  thy  patience,  and  thy 
works;  and  the  last  to  be  more  than  the  first;"  (Rev. 


190 


LETTERS  OX 


ii.  19.)  After  which  he  adds,  v.  24,  but  unto  you  I 
say,  (in  the  plural,  i^t if)  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira, 
(as  many  as  have  not  this  doctrine,  &c.)  I  will  put 
upon  you  none  other  burden  :  but  that  which  ye  have 
already,  hold  fast  till  I  come."  Now,  if  after  saying 
to  the  angel  of  the  Church  in  Smyrna,  v.  10,  "Fear 
none  of  those  things  which  thou  slialt  suffer,"  he  in- 
stantly subjoins,  "  Behold,  the  devil  shall  cast  some  of 
you  into  prison,  and  ye  shall  have  tribulation  ten 
days,"  and  if,  after  addressing  the  angel  of  the  latter 
Church  in  the  singular  number,  he  adds  soon  after- 
wards, "  But  unto  you  I  say,"  in  the  plural,  it  seems 
impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion,  that  the  angels  of 
these  churches  must  not  have  been  designed  to  be 
viewed  as  single  persons  like  diocesan  bishops,  but  as 
the  representatives  of  a  number  of  persons.  And  as 
the  members  of  the  church  or  the  people  are  said  in 
the  first  chapter  to  be  represented  by  the  candlesticks, 
and  the  ministers  by  the  symbols  of  the  angels  and 
the  stars,  I  cannot  see  how,  without  setting  aside  our 
Lord's  interpretation  of  these  symbols,  you  can  con- 
sider the  plurality  of  persons  represented  by  the  angel, 
(for  as  the  pronouns  are  plural  he  must  represent  a 
plurality,)  as  any  other  than  the  ivhole  of  the  minis- 
ters of  these  different  churches. 

It  is  alleged  by  Episcopalians,  that  when  plural 
pronouns  are  used  in  these  Epistles  after  a  singular 
noun  or  pronoun,  it  is  the  people  who  are  referred  to 
by  the  former.  But  I  would  remark,  in  the  first 
place,  that  even  according  to  this  interpretation,  the 
rest  of  the  pastors  except  the  bishop,  though  by  far 
the  most  numerous  part  of  the  ministry,  remain  un- 
noticed ;  and  can  we  suppose  that  they  would  have 
been  overlooked  in  such  particular  descriptions  of  the 
state  of  the  churches  ?  2dly,  These  Epistles  are  not 
addressed  to  the  angels  and  churches  of  Smyrna  and 
Thyatira,  as  we  would  have  expected  to  be  the  case 
if  this  exposition  had  been  correct,  but  merely  to  the 
angels ;  and  no  other  party  is  introduced  afterwards, 
and  addressed  separately.  3dly,  If  it  be  the  people 
who  are  intended  when  the  plural  pronouns  are  used, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


191 


v.  10,  without  any  notice  of  a  change  of  the  persons 
who  were  to  be  addressed,  and  if  it  be  the  bishop 
alone  who  is  referred  to  when  the  singular  pronouns 
are  employed  in  the  first  and  last  clauses  of  that  verse, 
there  is  an  inexplicable  mixing  of  the  persons  who 
are  addressed.  And  what  is  still  more  inexplicable, 
while  the  people  are  told  that  they  are  "to  suffer,  and 
to  be  cast  into  prison,"  they  have  no  promise  address- 
ed to  them  to  animate  them  under  their  tribulations, 
nor  the  least  comfort  administered  to  them,  but  it  is 
given  exclusively  to  the  bishop,  who  alone  is  told  in 
the  last  clause,  that  "  if  he  is  faithful  unto  the  death," 
the  Redeemer  will  "give  him  a  crown  of  life."  But 
suppose  that  the  angel  to  ivhom  evert/  thing  is  ad- 
dressed in  both  these  Epistles  represents  not  merely 
a  single  individual,  like  a  diocesan  bishop,  but,  as  the 
plural  pronouns  evidently  suggest,  a  number  of  indi- 
viduals ;  and  suppose  further,  that  these  individuals 
are  not  the  members  of  either  of  these  churches,  who 
are  represented  by  the  candlesticks,  but  the  only  other 
persons  who  remain,  namely,  the  whole  of  their  min- 
isters, and  all  these  difficulties  are  removed  ;  and  you 
see  how  all  of  them  could  appropriate  the  promise, 
and  though  they  were  cast  into  prison,  if  they  were 
"  faithful  unto  the  death,"  might  be  cheered  by  the 
assurance  that  they  would  "receive  a  crown  of  life." 

So  evidently  are  these  views  suggested  by  the 
Epistles,  that  they  are  adopted  by  Stillingfleet  with 
his  usual  candour,  who  scouts  the  idea  that  the  angels 
of  the  churches  were  diocesan  bishops.  "  If  the  name 
angel,"  says  he,  "imports  no  incongruity,  though  taken 
only  for  the  Sheliach  Zibbor  in  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
the  public  minister  of  the  synagogue,  called  the  angel 
of  the  congregation,  what  power  can  be  inferred  from 
thence,  any  more  than  such  an  officer  was  invested 
with?  Nay,  if  in  the  prophetical  style  an  unity  may 
be  set  down  by  way  of  representation  of  a  multitude, 
what  evidence  can  be  brought  from  the  name,  that 
by  it  some  one  particular  person  must  be  under- 
stood? And  by  this  means  Timothy  may  avoid  being 
charged  with  leaving  his  first  love,  which  he  must  of 


192 


LETTERS  ON 


necessity  be  by  tbose  tbat  make  him  angel  of  the 
Chnrcb  of  Ephesus  at  the  time  of  writing  these  Epis- 
tles. Neither  is  this  any  wayes  solved  by  the  answer 
given,  that  the  name  angel  is  representative  of  the 
whole  Church,  and  so  there  is  no  necessity  the  angel 
should  be  personally  guilty  of  it.  For  first,  it  seems 
strange  that  the  whole  diffusive  body  of  the  Church 
should  be  charged  with  a  crime  by  the  name  of  the 
angel,  and  he  that  is  particularly  meant  by  that  name 
should  be  free  from  it.  As  if  a  prince  should  charge 
the  mayor  of  a  corporation  as  guilty  of  "rebellion,  and 
by  it  should  only  mean  that  the  corporation  was 
guilty,  but  the  mayor  was  innocent  himself.  Second- 
ly, if  many  things  in  the  Epistles  be  directed  to  the 
angel,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the  whole  body,  then 
of  necessity  the  angel  must  be  taken  as  representa- 
tive of  the  body;  and  then  why  may  not  the  word 
angel  be  taken  only  by  way  of  representation  of  the 
body  itself,  either  of  the  whole  Church,  or  which  is 
far  more  probable,  of  the  consessus  or  order  of  pres- 
byters in  that.  Church 

If  the  angels,  however,  of  these  early  churches  re- 
presented the  whole  body  of  the  presbyters,  and  nei- 
ther a  diocesan  bishop,  nor  the  people  or  members, 
the  last  of  tvhom  could  scarcely  be  called  angels, 
for  it  is  not  their  province  to  deliver  the  message, 
but  rather  to  receive  it,  it  is  easy  to  perceive  how 
they  could  perform  the  different  acts  of  jurisdiction 
which  are  ascribed  to  them  by  Episcopalians.  Pres- 
byters are  declared  to  be  worthy  of  double  honour  if 
they  rule  well,  and  why  might  not  the  presbyters  of 
the  Asiatic  Churches  have  attained  that  honour,  by 
performing  acts  which  were  required  from  the  angels 
of  Pergamos  and  Thyatira?  I  acknowledge  with  For- 
rester, that  the  expulsion  of  the  individuals  from  the 
communion  of  these  churches  who  taught  the  here- 
sies, and  were  guilty  of  the  immoralities  which  are 
mentioned  in  the  Epistles,  would  have  been  judicial 
acts;  but  they  were  acts  to  which  the  authority  com- 

*  Irenieum,  p.  289,  290. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


193 


mitted  to  presbyters,  as  was  formerly  proved,  was 
fully  equal. 

I  have  only  further  to  observe,  that  while  I  look 
upon  the  angels  as  intended  to  represent  the  ministers 
of  these  churches,  because  they  alone  were  to  deliver 
the  message  of  heaven  by  preaching  the  Gospel,  Dr. 
Hammond  considers  them  as  designed  chiefly  to  re- 
present the  people.  "  Though  the  angels,"  says  he, 
"  were  single  persons,  yet  what  is  said  to  them  is  said 
not  only  to  their  persons,  but  to  the  universality  of 
the  people  under  them,  whose  non-proficiency,  or  re- 
mission of  degrees  of  Christian  virtue,  especially  their 
falling  off  from  the  constancy  and  courage  of  their 
profession,  do  deserve  (and  accordingly  are  threaten- 
ed with)  the  removal  of  their  Christian  knowledge, 
that  grace,  those  privileges  of  a  Church  which  had 
been  allowed  them,  ch.  ii.  5,  which  is  not  so  properly 
applied  as  a  punishment  of  the  bishop,  as  of  the  peo- 
ple under  him.  And  therefore,  in  the  paraphrase  I 
have  generally  changed  the  singular  into  the  plural 
number,  by  that  means  to  have  it  indifferently  to  the 
bishop  of  every  church,  and  the  people  under  him."* 
The  same,  too,  was  the  opinion  of  Willet,  who  says, 
in  a  passage  formerly  quoted,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  wri- 
ting to  the  angels  and  chief  pastors  of  the  seven 
Churches,  Apoc.  ii.  3,  implyeth  the  rest  of  the  minis- 
ters and  Church  there,  as  may  appear  by  the  matter 
of  the  Epistles,  wherein  the  faults  of  the  whole  Church 
are  reproved,  and  their  virtues  commended."  And  it 
was  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ancient  fathers,  who 
seem  never  to  have  imagined  that  the  angels  repre- 
sented only  a  single  individual.  Thus,  when  John 
says  in  the  first  Epistle,  "  To  the  angel  of  the  Church 
of  Ephesus,"  Aretas,  Bishop  of  Coesarea  in  Cappado- 
cia,  says,  "he  means  the  Church  in  it."t  When  he 
exhorts  the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  to  "  fear 
none  of  these  things,"  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on 
the  Apocalypse,  which  are  bound  up  with  the  works 

*  Consult  him  on  these  Epistles. 

t  Comment,  in  Apoc.  t»  a  ccuth  ttHMiaia.  Ktyti. 


13 


194 


LETTERS  OJf 


of  St.  Augustine,  observes,  "  he  says  it  to  the  whole 
Church."*  When  he  says  to  the  angel  of  the  Church 
of  Pergamos,  "  I  know  thy  works,  and  where  thou 
dwellest,  even  where  Satan's  seat  is,"  it  is  remarked 
by  the  same  writer,  "  these  things  under  a  singular 
word  are  said  to  the  whole  Church,  because  Satan 
dwells  everywhere  by  his  body."t  I  might  go  over 
the  whole  of  these  little  Epistles,  and  appeal  to  simi- 
lar quotations  from  the  fathers  in  confirmation  of  my 
statement,  but  I  consider  it  as  unnecessary.  And 
though  I  differ  from  them  in  their  account  of  the  per- 
sons represented  by  the  angels  of  the  Churches,  they 
agree  with  me  in  this,  that  these  early  ministers  were 
not  intended  to  be  regarded  as  single  persons,  and 
that  you  will  look  to  them  in  vain  for  the  smallest 
support  to  your  ecclesiastical  polity. 

Having  finished  this  review  of  the  different  argu- 
ments for  diocesan  Episcopacy,  which  have  been  ad- 
duced from  Scripture  by  its  most  distinguished  advo- 
cates, and  endeavoured  to  show,  that  on  whatever 
you  found  it,  it  cannot  be  on  the  statements  of  the 
word  of  God,  I  might  conclude  this  discussion,  which 
has  been  far  more  extended  than  I  at  first  anticipated. 
But,  before  I  do  so,  I  beg  to  subjoin  a  view  of  the 
powers  which  you  commit  to  your  bishops,  by  one  of 
the  most  enlightened  and  illustrious  men  who  ever 
lived  in  England,  and  which  he  pronounces  to  be  as 
inconsistent  with  all  the  principles  of  good  govern- 
ment, as  I  have  attempted  to  show,  that  they  are  des- 
titute of  any  warrant  from  the  sacred  volume. 

The  individual  to  whom  1  allude  is  the  great  Lord 
Bacon,  who,  in  his  Considerations  touching  the  paci- 
fication of  the  Church,  addressed  to  James  the  First, 
makes  the  following  observations: 

"  There  be  two  circumstances  in  the  administra- 
tion of  bishops,  wherein  I  confess  /  could  never  be 
satisfied,  the  one,  the  sole  exercise  of  their  authority, 
the  other,  the  deputation  of  their  authority. 

"  For  the  first,  the  bishop  giveth  orders  alone,  ex- 

*  Augustine,  Op.  torn.  x.  Horn.  2,  in  Apoc.  "Omni  Ecclesise  dicit." 
t  Horn.  2.  in  Apoc. 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACV. 


195 


communicateth  alone,  judgeth  alone.  This  seemeth 
to  be  a  thing  almost  without  example  in  good  gov- 
ernment, and  therefore  not  unlikely  to  have  crept  in, 
in  the  degenerate  and  corrupt  times.  We  see  the 
greatest  kings  and  monarchs  have  their  councils. 
There  is  no  temporal  court  in  England,  of  the  highest 
sort,  where  the  authority  doth  rest  in  one  person. 
The  King's  Bench,  Common  Pleas  and  the  Exche- 
quer are  benches  of  a  number  of  judges.  The  chan- 
cellor of  England  hath  an  assistance  of  the  twelve 
Masters  of  the  Chancery.  The  Master  of  the  Wards 
hath  a  council  of  the  court,  so  hath  the  Chancellor  of 
the  Duchy.  In  the  Exchequer  Chamber  the  Lord 
Treasurer  is  joined  with  the  Chancellor  and  the  Bar- 
ons. The  Masters  of  the  Requests  are  ever  more 
than  one.  The  Justices  of  Assize  are  two.  The 
Lords  President  in  the  North  and  in  Wales  have 
councils  of  divers.  The  Star-Chamber  is  an  assem- 
bly of  the  King's  Privy  Council,  aspersed  with  the 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  so  as  in  courts  the 
principal  person  hath  ever  either  colleagues  or  asses- 
sors. 

"  The  like  is  to  be  found  in  other  well-governed 
commonwealths  abroad,  where  the  jurisdiction  is  yet 
more  dispersed,  as  in  the  Court  of  Parliament  of 
France,  and  in  other  places.  No  man  will  deny  but 
the  acts  which  pass  the  bishop's  jurisdiction  are  of  as 
great  importance  as  those  that  pass  the  civil  courts : 
for  men's  souls  are  more  precious  than  their  bodies 
or  goods;  and  so  are  their  good  names.  Bishops  have 
their  infirmities,  and  have  no  exceptions  from  that 
general  malediction,  which  is  pronounced  against  all 
men  living,  Vae  soli,  nam  si  occideret,  &c.  Nay,  we 
see  that  the  first  warrant  in  spiritual  causes  is  direct- 
ed to  a  number,  Die  Ecclesiae,*  which  is  not  so  in 
temporal  matters;  and  we  see,  that  in  general  causes 
of  Church  government,  there  are  as  well  assemblies 
of  the  clergy  in  councils,  as  of  all  the  states  in  Parlia- 
ment.   IVhence  should  this  sole  exercise  of  jurisdic- 


*  "  Tell  the  Church." 


196 


LETTERS  ON 


Hon  come?  Surely  I  do  suppose,  I  think  upon  good 
grounds,  that  ah  initio  non  fuit  ita*  and  that  the 
deans  and  chapters  were  councils  about  the  sees  and 
chairs  of  bishops  at  the  first,  and  were  unto  them  a 
presbytery  or  consistory  ;  and  intermeddled  not  only 
in  the  disposing  of  their  revenues  and  endowments, 
but  much  more  in  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical.  But  it 
is  probable  that  the  deans  and  chapters  stuck  close  to 
the  bishops  in  matters  of  profit  and  the  world,  and 
would  not  lose  their  hold;  but  in  matters  of  jurisdic- 
tion, which  they  accounted  but  trouble  and  atten- 
dance, they  siuTered  the  bishops  to  encroach  and 
usurp ;  and  so  the  one  continueth,  and  the  other  is 
lost.  And  we  see  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  fas  enim 
et  ab  hoste  doceri,  and  no  question  in  that  Church 
the  first  institutions  were  excellent,  performeth  all 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  as  in  consistory. 

"  And  whereof  consisteth  this  consistory,  but  of  the 
parish-priests  of  Rome,  which  term  themselves  cardi- 
nals a  cardi?iibus  mundi,  because  the  bishop  pre- 
tendeth  to  be  universal  over  the  whole  world?  And 
hereof  again  we  see  many  shadows  yet  remaining,  as 
that  the  dean  and  chapter,  pro  forma,  chooseth  the 
bishop,  ivhich  is  the  highest  point  of  jurisdiction: 
and  that  the  bishop,  when  he  giveth  orders,  if  there 
be  any  ministers  casually  present,  calleth  them  to  join 
with  him  in  imposition  of  hands,  and  some  other 
particulars.  And  therefore  it  seemeth  to  me  a  thing 
reasonable  and  religious,  and  according  to  the  first 
institution,  that  the  bishops  in  the  greatest  causes, 
and  those  which  require  a  spiritual  discerning,  namely, 
in  ordaining,  suspending,  or  depriving  ministers, 
in  excommunication,  being  restored  to  the  true  and 
proper  use,  as  shall  be  afterwards  touched,  in  sen- 
tencing the  validity  of  marriages  and  legitimations, 
in  judging  catises  criminous,  as  simony,  incest,  blas- 
phemy and  the  like,  should  not  proceed  sole  and  un- 
assisted :  which  point,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  refor- 
mation that  may  be  planted  sine  strepitu,  without 
any  perturbation  at  all. 

*  "  From  the  beginning-  it  was  not  so." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


197 


"  For  the  second  point,  which  is  the  deputation  of 
their  authority,  I  see  no  perfect  nor  sure  ground  for 
that  neither,  being  somewhat  different  from  the  exam- 
ples and  rules  of  government.  The  bishop  exerciseth 
his  jurisdiction  by  his  chancellor  and  commissary  offi- 
cial," &c.  "  We  see  in  all  laws  in  the  world,  offices 
of  confidence  and  skill  cannot  be  put  over  nor  exer- 
cised by  deputy,  except  it  be  especially  contained  in 
the  original  grant  ;  and  in  that  case  it  is  dutiful.  And 
for  experience,  there  never  was  any  Chancellor  of 
England  made  a  deputy;  there  was  never  any  judge 
in  any  court  made  a  deputy.  The  bishop  is  a  judge, 
and  of  a  high  nature.  Whence  cometh  it  that  he 
should  depute,  considering  that  all  trust  and  confi- 
dence, as  was  said,  is  personal  and  inherent,  and  can- 
not, nor  ought  not  to  be  transposed?  Surely,  in 
this  again,  ab  initio  non  fuit  sic;  but  it  is  probable 
that  bishops  when  they  gave  themselves  too  much 
to  the  glory  of  the  world,  and  became  grandees  in 
kingdoms,  and  great  counsellors  to  princes,  then 
did  they  delegate  their  proper  jurisdiction,  as  things 
of  too  inferior  a  nature  for  their  greatness,  and 
then,  after  the  similitude  and  imitation  of  kings  and 
counts-palatine,  they  would  have  their  chancellors 
and  judges."* 

I  trust  that  the  name  of  the  eminent  individual  from 
whom  I  have  taken  this  quotation,  and  the  weight  of 
his  authority,  will  form  my  apology  for  introducing  it, 
notwithstanding  its  length.  And  as  you  still  continue 
to  intrust  to  your  bishops  those  high  powers,  their 
title  to  which  you  cannot  establish  from  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  and  which  he  demonstrates  to  be  inconsis- 
tent with  all  the  principles  of  good  government,  I 
leave  it  to  impartial  judges  to  say  what  we  ought  to 
think  of  the  modesty  of  your  pretensions,  when,  along 
with  your  friends  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  you  tell  us 
that  yours  are  the  only  churches  in  which  there  is  a 
Gospel  ministry,  right  ecclesiastical  government,  sacra- 


*  Vol.  iii.  of  his  Works,  p.  150-152,  edit.  17G5. 


19S 


LETTERS  ON  PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


ments  which  have  any  virtue,  and  a  covenanted  title 
to  the  blessings  of  salvation. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  advert  to  the  arguments 
for  Episcopacy  from  mere  expediency,  as  I  have 
engaged  in  this  discussion  with  a  view  chiefly  to 
repel  the  unprovoked  attacks  of  those  of  its  advocates, 
who,  not  satisfied  with  preferring  it  on  other  grounds, 
advance  for  it  the  claim  of  an  exclusive  title  to  a  divine 
institution,  and  imitating  the  conduct  of  Papists  to- 
wards themselves,  have  ventured  to  unchurch  Presby- 
terian Churches.  But  I  may  briefly  notice,  that  if  it 
be  alleged  that  it  is  the  best  and  most  effectual  means 
for  preventing  schism,  the  numerous  divisions  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  every  age,  and  the  state  of  your 
own  Church  in  the  present  day,  prove  that  it  is  an 
expedient  which  is  utterly  powerless.  Besides,  if  that 
be  a  reason  for  establishing  Episcopacy,  it  will  lead 
to  consequences,  of  which  many  who  urge  it  do  not 
appear  to  be  aware.  "  For,"  says  an  old  and  able 
writer,  "  if  there  be  a  necessity  for  setting  up  of  one 
bishop  over  many  pastors,  for  preventing  schisms, 
then  there  is  as  great  necessity  of  setting  up  one  arch- 
bishop over  many  bishops,  and  one  patriarch  over 
many  archbishops  and  one  Pope  over  all;  unless 
men  will  imagine  that  there  is  danger  of  schism 
among  ministers,  but  not  among  bishops,  archbishops, 
and  patriarchs,  which  is  contrary  to  reason,  truth, 
history,  and  our  own  experience."* 

I  am,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 

*  Letter  from  a  Parochial  Bishop  to  a  Prelatical  Gentleman  in 
Scotland,  p.  101. 


199 


LETTER  XIV. 

Apostolical  succession. — If  the  Apostles  were  neitherdiocesan  bishops  them- 
selves, nor  ordained  such  bishops,  the  apostolical  succession,  as  explained 
and  claimed  by  Puseyite  Episcopalians,  never  began. — Waving  that  ob- 
jection, as  far  as  there  was  a  succession,  it  was  preserved  to  Presbyterian 
Churches  before  the  Reformation,  as  uninterruptedly  as  to  Episcopalian 
Churches;  and  since  that  time  it  has  been  preserved  as  regularly  in  the 
former,  by  Presbyterian  ordinations,  as  in  the  latter  by  Episcopal. — Un- 
founded allegation  by  Spottiswood  and  others,  that  the  adoption  of  Presby- 
tery at  Geneva  orginated  in  a  wish  to  assimilate,  the  governmtnt  of  the 
C/iurc/i  to  that  of  I  lie  Stale,  and  that  this  led  to  the  adoption  of  that  tbrm 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  in  other  countries. — The  contrary  proved  f  rom  the 
reasoning  of  Farel  with  Furbiti,  who  preceded  Calvin,  and  is  considered 
by  many  as  the  modern  father  or  reviver  of  Presbytery. — Eusebius  ac- 
knowledges that  he  could  not  truce  the  succession  in  many  of  the  early 
Churches. — Jewel  and  Slillingfleet  confess  that  it  cannot  be  traced  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  from  which  many  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land have  derived  their  orders. 

Reverend  Sir, — If  diocesan  Episcopacy,  as  I  trust 
has  been  proved  in  the  preceding  letters,  lias  failed 
completely  in  establishing  its  claim  to  a  divine  insti- 
tution, it  may  be  considered  as  unnecessary  that  I 
should  inquire  any  further  into  your  boasted  privilege 
of  the  apostolic  succession;  for  if  the  Apostles  were 
neither  bishops  themselves,  nor  ordained  bishops,  the 
series  of  unbroken  Episcopalian  ordinations  which  you 
represent  as  .the  peculiar  privilege  of  your  churches,  at 
what  ever  time  it  commenced,  must  be  a  mere  human 
invention.  But  waving  that  strong  and  insuperable 
objection  to  your  doctrine  of  the  succession,  I  am 
willing  to  meet  you  on  lower  ground,  and  I  shall 
proceed  to  examine  whether  the  series  of  regularly 
ordained  bishops,  which,  you  allege,  began  in  the  time 
of  the  Apostles,  has  been  preserved  uninterrupted  in 
any  of  these  churches  till  the  present  day.  If  the 
chain  which  connects  either  your  own  bishops,  or  the 
bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland,  with  the 
first  in  the  series,  has  unfortunately  been  broken  either 
at  the  tenth,  or  fiftieth,  or  hundredth  link,  the  con- 
sequences on  your  principles  must  evidently  be  fatal ; 
for  neither  of  these  Churches  can  be  considered  any 
longer  as  a  Christian  Church,  nor  can  any  of  its  minis- 


200 


LETTERS  ON 


ters  be  Christian  ministers,  nor  can  any  of  its  mem- 
bers have  any  revealed  or  covenanted  title  to  salva- 
tion. And  the  same,  too,  would  be  the  state  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  of  every  other  Church 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  question  then  to  be 
considered  is  briefly  this,  can  it  be  proved  that  the 
series,  allowing  it  to  have  commenced,  if  not  with  the 
Apostles,  yet  in  the  apostolic  age,  (the  opposite  of 
which,  I  apprehend,  has  been  established,)  has  never 
been  interrupted?  or  can  it  be  demonstrated  on  the 
contrary,  that  there  is  not  a  single  Episcopalian  Church 
in  which  it  has  not  been  frequently  broken  ? 

I  observe  in  the  first  place,  that  in  as  far  as  the 
succession  remains  uninterrupted,  we  can  claim  it  for 
our  churches,  as  much  as  you  are  entitled  to  claim  it 
for  yours;  for  our  first  reformers  when  they  left  the 
communion  of  the  Church  of  Rome  were  possessed  of 
orders  which  were  equally  valid  with  those  of  your 
reformers.  It  was  so  with  Bucer,  who  was  a  Popish 
presbyter  before  he  became  a  Protestant;  and  with 
Farel,  who  defended  Presbytery  before  the  Council 
of  Geneva,  against  the  artful  Furbiti,  a  number  of 
months  before  Calvin  accidentally  visited  that  city,* 

•  Ruchat  says  of  Farel,  in  his  Histoire  de  la  Reformation  de  la 
Suisse,  torn.  i.  p.  231,  that  he  was  "  Reformateur  d'une  bonne  partie 
de  la  Suisse  Romande,  d'Aigle,  de  Morat,  de  Neuchatel,  de  Geneve, 
et  en  partie  de  Lausanne.  And  the  following  is  a  part  of  his  account 
of  the  discussion  between  the  Reformer  and  Furbiti,  who  was  a  doctor 
of  the  Sorbonne,  before  the  Council,  in  January  1534,  on  the  subject 
of  Episcopacy.  "Furbiti,"  says  he,  torn.  v.  p.  114,  "  voulut  prouver 
la  superiorite  de  l'Eveque  par  dessus  le  Pretre,  lwiff,  Parce  que  Jesus 
Christ  a  elu  douze  Apotres,  (Mat.  x,)  qui  out  ete  Eveques,  comme  c'il 
paroit  par  Judas,  de  qui  il  est  dit,  qu'un  autre  prenne  son  Eveche. 
(Ruchat  adds  in  a  note,  that  it  is  quoted  by  Peter  from  the  109th 
Psalm,  and  one  may  judge  whether  David,  when  he  wrote  it,  was 
thinking  of  bishops.)  2do,  Parce  que  S.  Paul  dit,  Eph.  iv.  que  le 
Seigneur  ai  donne  les  uns  pour  ctre  Apotres,  les  autres  pour  etre  Pro- 
phetes,  les  autres  Pasteurs  et  Docteurs,  &,c.  En  un  Diocesse  il  n'y  a 
qu'un  Eveque,  qui  a  sous  plusicurs  Pretres,  &c. 

Farel,  apres  avoir  releve  en  passant  ce  que  Furbiti  disoit  du  Pape, 
et  soutenu  que  Jesus  Christ  n'a  point  de  Successeur  montra  que  dans 
les  Epitres  de  S.  Paul  les  mots  Eeeque  et  Pretre  sont  synonimes ; 
lino,  par  l'Epitre  a  Tite,  (c.  i.)  ou  il  lui  dit  qu'il  la  laisse  en  Crete, 
pour  y  etablir  des  Pretres  T^iur^yj;,  v.  5,  si  quelqu'un  soit  irrepre- 
hensible,  &c.    2do,  Par  Act  xx.  ou  S.  Paul  fit  venir  les  Pretres 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


201 


and  more  than  a  year  and  a  half  before  he  published 
his  Institutes,*  and  who  accordingly  has  been  con- 
sidered by  some  as  having  had  a  preferable  claim  over 
the  latter  Reformer,  to  the  honourable  character  of 
the  modern  father,  or  restorer  of  Presbytery.  And  I 
may  remark  in  passing,  that  it  is  impossible  for  any 
one  to  look  into  the  arguments  employed  by  Farel,  as 
they  are  stated  below,  or  into  some  of  the  facts  which 
are  mentioned  in  the  notes,  without  being  struck  with 
the  groundlessness  of  the  assertion  of  Spottiswood, 

d'Ephese,  v.  17,  et  leur  dit,  Prcnez  garde  a  vous  et  a  tout  le  troupeau 
sur  lequel  Ie  Saint  Esprit  vous  a  etabilis  cveques,  v.  28.  3mo,  Par  S. 
Pierre,  qui  au  commencement  du  ch.  v.  de  sa  premiere  Epitre,  ne 
s'appelle,  ni  Pape,  ni  Archeveque,  mais  Pretre  avec  ou  comme  les 
autres.  4//(0,  II  y  avoit  plusieurs  Eveques  dans  une  ville,  comme  il 
paroit  par  ceux  d'Ephese  qui  etoient  plusieurs,  et  par  le  commence- 
ment de  l'Epitre  aux  Philippiene  ou  S.  Paul  salue  les  Eveques  et  les 
Diacres.  5/no,  Si  Jesus  Christ  a  institue  12  Apotres  et  ensuite  70 
disciples,  (et  non  72,)  il  n'a  point  pretendu  marquer  par  la  difference 
des  Eveques  et  des  Pretrcs :  Les  noms  aVEveque  et  de  Pretre  signifient 
la  rneme  (lignite.  Le  premier  marque  le  soin  de  inspection,  et  le 
second  l'age,  signifiant  proprement  Ancien,  car  il  faut  qu'il  soit 
Ancien  de  moeurs  et  de  Savoir,  pour  conduire  le  peuple.  6mo,  Si 
Judas  etnit  Eveque,  ou  son  Eveche  ?  Mais  bien  lui  convient  dit  il  avec 
les  Eveques  qui  au  lieu  de  porter  la  parole  de  Dieu  portent  la  bourse, 
derobentce  qui  doit  venir  aux  pauvres,"  &c. 

It  is  plain  from  this,  that  when  Presbytery  was  established  in  Ge- 
neva, it  was  not  because  as  Heylin,  Spottiswood  and  other  Episco- 
palians affirm,  it  resembled  the  republican  government  of  the  state, 
but  because  it  appeared  to  be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God.  Besides, 
as  the  Grand  Council  of  the  city,  which  was  composed,  according  to 
Ruchat,  of  two  hundred  or  two  hundred  and  fitly  members,  chose  all 
the  members  of  the  Little  Council,  Petit  Conceil,  and  of  the  Council 
of  Sixty,  and  as  the  little  or  lowest  council  decided  in  certain  matters 
without  appeal,  there  was  no  resemblance  in  point  of  fact  between  the 
courts  of  the  state  and  the  Presbyterian  courts.  And  yet  how  often 
have  the  fictions  of  Spottiswood  been  retailed  by  others. 

*  Ilistoria  Literaria  de  Johannis  Calvini  Institutione,  torn.  ii.  part  1, 
page  453  of  the  Serinium  Antiquarium  of  Gerdesius. 

It  deserves  also  to  be  mentioned,  that  after  the  celebrated  Helvetian 
Assembly,  which  was  held  for  inquiring  into  the  necessity  for  a  Re- 
formation in  1523,  and  at  which,  according  to  Gerdesius,  (Histor. 
Evangel.  Rcnov.  vol.  i.  p.  290,)  nine  hundred  deputies  were  present, 
the  magistrates  of  Geneva  and  Switzerland  published  an  edict,  in 
which  among  other  things  they  condemned  organs  and  all  instru- 
mental music.  "Sacerdotibusquoque  mandatum  est  ne  organis  pos- 
thac  ludant  in  templis."  This  paper,  says  Fusslin,  in  his  Document, 
ad  Histor.  Reform.  Helvet,  torn  i.  was  drawn  up  with  the  concurrence 
of  Zuinglius,  Engelhardt  and  Leo  Juda. 


202 


LETTERS  ON 


that  Presbyterian  Church  government  was  adopted 
at  Geneva  merely  to  assimilate  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  to  that  of  the  State.  It  was  so  with 
Luther,  who  was  ordained  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  afterwards  ordained  many  presbyters, 
and  who,  along  with  three  presbyters,  made  Amsdorf 
Bishop  of  Nuremberg,  and,  with  some  other  presbyters, 
made  George,  Prince  of  Anhalt,  Bishop  of  Marsburg.* 
Nor  did  the  Prince  imagine  that  he  acted  irregularly 
when  he  asked  the  Reformer  to  ordain  him ;  for,  as 
Seckendorf  informs  us,  he  thought  he  was  justified  in 
doing  so,  by  the  example  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  who 
were  ordained  by  prophets  and  teachers  at  Antioch, 
and  by  the  opinion  of  Jerome,  who  represented  bishops 
and  presbyters  as  equal.t 

*  Melchior  Adami  Vitae  Gcrmanorum  Theologorum,  p.  150 ;  Seck- 
endorf s  History  of  Lutheranism,  lib.  iii.  p.  392. 

t  "  Addit,"  says  Seckendorf,  lib.  iii.  p.  500,  speaking  of  what  is 
mentioned  on  this  subject  by  George  himself,  in  a  preface  to  his  Ser- 
mons, "sequidem  rogassc  Matthiam  a  Jagow,  Episcopum  Brande- 
burgensem,  ut  ordinationcm  suam  in  sc  susciperet,  sed  ilium  eo  tem- 
pore mortuum  esse.  Itaque  Pauli  et  Bamabae  exemplo,  quos  pro- 
phetae  et  doctores  Antiocheni,  Actorum,  xiii,  1,  2,  3,  ordinaverunt,  D. 
Martinum  Lutherum  piae  memoriae,  aliosque  aecersitos  fuisse,  a 
quibus  solennitcr  et  pie  accepto  etiam  Sacramento,  per  manuum 
impositonem  ordinatus  fuerit,  eoque  nomine  sc  gratias  Deo  agere  dicit. 
Subjungit  inde  ex  Hieronymo  quae  nota  sunt,  ab  ipso  tamcn  egregie 
deducuntur,  de  paritate  Episcoporum  et  Presbyterorum." 

I  may  add  here,  that  when  a  false  account  of  a  change  of  sentiment 
on  the  part  of  Luther  and  Melancthon  was  handed  about  by  the  Papists 
in  1539,  Seckendorf  says,  lib.  iii.  p.  228,  "Luther  and  Melancthon 
never  thought  that  the  episcopal  office  was  necessary  with  all  that 
power  and  authority  as  it  exists  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  nor  did  they 
recognise  any  essential  difference  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  as 
is  manifest  from  all  their  writings  which  have  never  been  recalled,  and 
especially  from  the  tract  on  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  bishops, 
composed  by  Melancthon  at  Smalkald,  in  1537,  and  subscribed  by 
Luther,  and  annexed  to  the  articles  which  they  drew  up  between  them. 
Lutherus  et  Melancthon  nunquam  statuerint  necessarium  esse  illud 
tnunu-i  Episcopale,"  &c. 

Seckendorf  remarks,  too,  lib.  iii.  p  240,  that  in  the  Ordinatio  Eccle- 
siastica,  which  was  issued  by  the  Elector  of  Brandenburgh,  the  an- 
cestor of  the  present  King  of  Prussia,  in  1539,  that  Prince  acknow- 
ledges, that  "  at  the  beginning,  as  Jerome  declares,  there  was  no  dif- 
ference between  the  ordination  of  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  that  it 
was  plain  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
that  bishops  received  it  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  college 
of  Presbyters.    Refert  ex  Hieronymo,  et  post  cum  ex  aliis  Doctoribus, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


203 


It  was  so  in  regard  to  the  leading  Reformers  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  It  was  admitted  by  Winzel,  the 
Popish  priest,  respecting  Knox;  for  in  one  of  his  letters 
to  him  he  addresses  him  in  the  following  terms:  "As 
S.  Paul  ordinatit  Timothe  and  Tite,  gevand  thaim 
power  and  command  to  ordour  utheris,  quherin  ap- 
peres  the  lauchful  ordinatioun  of  ministeris,  zour 
lauchful  ordinatioun  be  ane  of  thir  two  wayis,  (he  had 
mentioned  another,)  we  desire  zou  to  shaw  sen  ze 
renunce  and  esteemis  that  ordinatioun  null  or  erar 
wickit,  (rather  wicked,)  be  the  quhilk  sum  tyme  ze 
war  callit  Schir  John,"  the  title  of  a  Popish  priest;* 
upon  which  Keith,  the  Episcopalian  historian,  re- 
marks, "  here  is  a  plain  and  certain  instruction  that 
John  Knox  had  formerly  received  the  ordination 
of  a  priest."t  And  it  was  acknowledged  by  Bishop 
Forbes,  an  ancient  Scottish  prelate,  with  whom  none 
of  their  present  bishops  can  be  compared,  either 
as  to  learning  or  orthodoxy,  so  far  as  we  can  judge 
from  their  writings,  for  he  says  to  the  Papists,  of 
the  founders  of  our  Church,  "  Who  of  our  first 
preachers  were  not  ordinarie  churchmen  ere  they 

Scholasticis  et  Canonistis,  praesertim  Panormitano  in  Cap.  Quando 
de  Consuetud.  nullum  fuissc  ab  initio  inter  episcopos  ot  presbyteros 
ratione  ordinationis  discrimen,"  &c. 

Melancthon,  in  his  tract  de  Ordine  in  Ecclcsia,  2d  vol.  of  his  Works, 
p.  867,  bears  the  following  decided  testimony  against  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  "  Sed  quaerat  aliquis  annon  etiam 
gradus  diversi  sint  ac  ordo  ?  Respondeo,  Est  in  Ecclesia  vera  minis- 
terium  doccndi,  sunt  doctores  ac  pastores  alicubi,  ut  scriptum  est,  alios 
quidem  dedit  doctores,  alios  pastores,  ne  circumferamur  variis  ventis 
doctrinae.  Est  igitur  officium,  et  sunt  gradus  donorum.  Sed  hinc 
non  sequitur  jure  divino  episcopum  a  presbytcro  discernendum  esse. 
Imo  Hieronymus  apcrle  testatur  non  esse  jure  divino  divcrsos  gradus 
episcopi  et  presbyteri."  In  other  words,  he  admits  that  there  are 
different  degrees  of  gifts,  but  denies  that  it  follows  from  thence  that 
"  there  is  any  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter;  and  says, 
that  according  to  Jcr.nne,  the  orders  of  bishops  and  presbyters  are 
not  distinct  from  each  other  by  divine  right. 

*  Sec  Strype's  Uranmcr,  pp.  100  and  101,  where  it  is  given  to  four 
Popish  priests.  Tindal's  Practice  of  the  Popish  Prelates,  p.  343  of 
his  works,  and  Frith's  Aunswer  to  my  Lord  of  Rochester,  p.  59. 

Dr.  Mackenzie,  in  his  Life  of  James  Tyrie,  says,  that  "  in  the  title 
of  one  of  that  Jesuit's  books,  in  controversy  with  Knox,  he  styles  him 
Sir  John  Knox." 

+  Appendix  to  his  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  204. 


204 


LETTERS  ON 


had  their  admission  to  the  ministerie  by  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  England,  Geneva  or  Germanie  ?  If  they 
were  not  blindlie  miscarried,  they  might  perceave  that 
which  they  speake  and  write  of  our  men  in  derision 
and  contumelie,  calling  them  Sir  John  Knox  and  Frere 
John  Craig,  it  verifieth  their  ordinarie  vocation."*  As 
far  as  the  succession  then  could  be  kept  up  by  ordina- 
tions obtained  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  of  which  the 
Scottish  Episcopalians  say  in  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
'•'  we  fly  the  doctrine  of  the  Papistical  kirk  in  par- 
ticipation of  the  Sacrament,  because  their  ministers 
are  not  the  ministers  of  Christ  Jesus,}"  and  which 
is  represented  in  Scripture  as  "  the  mother  of  the  spi- 
ritual abominations  of  the  earth,  out  of  which  the 
saints  are  exhorted  to  come,  if  they  would  not  be  par- 
takers of  her  plagues,  within  which  the  great  Anti- 
christ sits  in  the  Temple  of  God,  and  exalts  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God,  and  where  that  wicked 
one  bears  rule,  whom  the  Lord  is  to  destroy  with  the 
spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  the  brightness  of  his  coming," 
as  far,  T  say,  as  the  succession  could  be  kept  up  by 
ordinations  obtained  from  such  a  Church,  it  was  pre- 
served to  us  as  well  as  to  you;  and  while  it  has  been 
maintained  among  you  since  that  time  by  bishops, 
and  among  us  by  presbyters,  I  have  only  further  to 
add,  that  if  you  question  the  validity  of  our  orders, 
because  we  received  them  only  from  presbyters,  you 
would  be  bound,  for  the  same  reason,  to  question  the 
validity  of  the  orders  of  Barnabas  and  Timothy,  one 
of  whom,  as  has  been  proved,  was  ordained  even  to 
the  office  of  an  Apostle,  and  the  other  to  that  of  an 
evangelist,  by  presbyters;  and  you  do  so  in  opposition 
to  the  fifty -fifth  canon  of  your  own  Church,  to  which 
you  swear  obedience,  and  which,  though  made  in 
1603,  when  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  Presbyterian, 
enjoined  her  clergy  at  that  time,  and  commands  them 

*  Defence  of  the  Calling  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

t  Confession  of  Faith  which  they  used  before  the  Revolution ;  and 
yet  it  is  from  these  men,  whom  they  deny  to  be  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  that  the  present  bishops  of  what  they  haughtily  denominate 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland  derive  their  boasted  apos- 
tolical succession  ! 


PTTSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


205 


still  to  pray  for  our  Church  as  a  sister  Church.*  Be- 
sides, if  you  deny  the  validity  of  our  orders,  you  must 
set  aside  also  the  validity  of  our  baptisms.  And  this, 
as  I  shall  endeavour  to  show  you  immediately,  will 
lead  to  consequences  of  which  you  are  not  aware ;  for 
on  the  very  same  principle  it  may  be  easily  demon- 
strated that  you  are  not  a  minister,  nor  Mr.  Gladstone 
a  Christian,  nor  the  English  and  Scottish  Episcopalian 
Churches,  Churches  of  Christ. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  impossible  for  you  or  any 
of  your  followers  to  prove  that  such  an  uninterrupted 
apostical  succession,  as  that  in  which  you  glory,  has 
been  preserved  in  your  Church,  or  in  any  other  Epis- 
copalian Church  which  exists  upon  earth. 

Before  you  can  either  satisfy  your  own  minds,  or 
demonstrate  to  others  that  you  have  such  a  succession, 
you  must  be  able  to  show  who  were  the  bishops  from 
the  apostolic  age  from  whom  your  present  clergy  have 
derived  their  orders,  and  that  there  was  not  so  much 
as  one  of  them  for  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years 
whose  baptism  or  ordination  was  irregular.  If,  as 
has  already  been  remarked,  the  chain  which  you 
imagine  binds  you  to  the  Apostles  has  happened  to 
be  broken  by  an  essential  defect  in  the  baptism  or 
orders  of  any  of  your  bishops,  or  of  those  who  pre- 

*  "  The  very  canons  of  the  Church  of  England,"  says  the  dissent- 
ing gentleman  in  his  answer  to  Mr.  White,  p.  227,  "to  which  you 
have  sworn  obedience,  acknowledge  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  be  a 
sister  Church,  commanding  all  its  clergy  to  pray  for  the  Churches  of 
England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  as  parts  of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  dispersed  throughout  the  world." 

How  different  from  Dr.  Pusey's  sentiments  about  the  Church,  and 
those  of  a  number  of  the  present  Scottish  Episcopalians,  were  the 
views  of  Dr.  Forbes,  one  of  their  ancient  professors  of  divinity,  who, 
in  his  Irenicum,  defends  this  position,  p.  158,  that  "  a  church  which 
retains  the  orthodox  faith,  but  wants  bishops,  though  it  may  be  defec- 
tive in  its  constitution,  docs  not  cease  to  be  a  true  church,  nor  falls 
from  that  ecclesiastical  authority  which  is  possessed  by  churches  that 
are  governed  by  bishops."  Presbyterians  will  deny  that  it  is  defec- 
tive, and  will  maintain  that  it  resembles  more  closely  the  apostolic 
churches  than  other  churches  which  have  diocesan  bishops,  an  order 
of  ministers  whom  Christ  has  not  instituted.  But  still  it  shows  the 
estimate,  that  even  as  an  enlightened  Episcopalian,  he  formed  of  the 
difference  between  the  two  Churches,  where  the  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel were  faithfully  preached. 


206 


LETTERS  ON 


ceded  them,  whether  they  were  the  fiftieth,  or  the 
hundredth,  or  the  two  hundredth  in  the  series,  it  is 
fatal  upon  your  principles;  for  it  cannot  be  mended, 
and  we  must  wait  till  some  Apostle  rise  from  the  dead, 
and  begin  a  new  succession,  before  there  can  be  a 
church  or  a  minister  whose  labours  can  be  attended 
with  the  smallest  benefit  to  the  souls  of  men  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  The  first  of  these  qualifications  is 
indispensable,  for,  as  Dr.  Hickes  observes,  "  baptism 
is  a  fundamental  qualification  for  the  priesthood,  and 
the  want  thereof  must  utterly  render  a  man  uneata- 
ble of  being  a  Christian  priest,  because  it  makes  him 
utterly  uncapable  of  being  a  Christian."*  And  you 
are  sensible  that  by  the  canons  of  the  first  four  Gene- 
ral Councils,  which  are  recognised  both  by  your 
Church  and  by  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  all  baptisms 
performed  by  schismatics  are  considered  as  invalid, 
and  since  the  conference  at  Hampton  Court,  none  but 
ministers  who  have  been  ordained  by  bishops  can 
legally  administer  that  ordinance. t  And  the  second 
qualification  is  no  less  necessary.  Now,  I  apprehend 
that  you  cannot  tell  who  were  the  persons  who  bap- 
tized those  individuals  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
who  were  afterwards  bishops,  (and  in  the  days  of 
Tertullian  and  afterwards  it  was  often  done  by  lay- 
men,) and  who  were  the  bishops  that  ordained  the 
latter  till  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  The  Jews  had 
a  series  of  genealogical  tables  from  the  time  of  the 
institution  of  their  priesthood,  by  turning  to  which 
they  could  know  at  once  who  had  been  high-priest, 
or  priests  and  Levites,  from  the  days  of  Aaron.  By 
appealing  to  these,  any  one  who  was  descended  from 
a  priestly  family,  upon  attaining  the  age  appointed  in 
the  law,  could  demand  that  he  should  be  put  into 
that  office;  and  by  referring  to  them  also,  the  priests 
and  the  people  could  ascertain  whether  he  had  a  right 
to  it,  and  whether  his  ministrations  would  be  valid. 

*  Letter  to  Lawrence,  p.  37. 

t  Both  English  and  Scottisli  Episcopalians  attempt  to  remedy  this 
defect  in  different  ways  when  converts  join  their  Churches;  but  they 
are  always  unsatisfactory,  unless  the  individuals  are  re-baptized. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


207 


But  you,  I  presume,  have  no  such  record  of  the  pre- 
decessors of  your  bishops,  from  the  apostolic  age,  nor 
did  they  succeed,  like  the  Jewish  high-priest,  by  mere 
lineal  descent,  nor  can  you  or  the  prelates  of  the  Scot- 
tish Episcopalians,  who  are  beginning  to  vaunt  of  their 
apostolical  succession,  though  their  forefathers,  in  the 
nineteenth  article  of  their  Confession,  deny  "  lineal 
descense"  to  be  "  a  mark  of  the  true  kirk,"*  produce 
any  evidence  of  the  regularity  of  their  baptisms,  or  of 
the  validity  of  their  orders,  or  tell  in  many  instances 
which  of  them  was  first  and  which  of  them  was  last. 
Ensebins,  the  most  early  of  our  Church  historians, 
confesses  that  he  could  not  do  it;  for  he  says  that  he 
was  "  like  a  man  walking  through  a  desert,  with  only 
here  and  there  a  light  to  direct  him;"  and  that  he  had 
been  able  to  collect  such  notices  as  he  had  procured 
"  of  the  successors,  not  of  all,  but  only  of  the  more 
illustrious  Aposties."t  And  if  such  was  his  want  of 
light  in  the  fourth  century,  will  you,  or  Mr.  Newman, 
or  Mr.  Gladstone,  throw  more  light  on  these  matters 
in  the  nineteenth?  And  he  says  in  another  passage, 
"  Who  they  were,  that  imitating  these  Apostles,  (Peter 
and  Paul,)  were  by  them  thought  worthy  to  govern 
the  Churches  which  they  planted,  is  no  easy  thing  to 
tell,  excepting  suck  as  may  be  collected  from  Paul's 
own  words."!  On  which  Stillingfleet  remarks,  then 
"  what  becomes  of  our  unquestionable  line  of  succes- 
sion of  the  bishops  of  several  Churches,  and  the  large 
diagrams  made  of  the  apostolical  Churches,  with  every 
one's  name  set  down  in  his  order,  as  if  the  writer  had 
been  Clarencieux  to  the  Apostles  themselves?  Are 
all  the  great  outcries  of  apostolical  tradition,  of  per- 
sonal succession,  of  uncpiestionable  records,  resolved 
at  last  into  the  Scripture  itself,  by  him  from  whom  all 
these  long  pedigrees  are  fetched?  Then  let  succes- 
sion know  its  place,  and  learn  to  vaile  bonnet  to  the 

*  The  article  relates  to  "the  notes  of  the  true  kirk,"  of  which  it 
says,  "they  are  neither  antiquity,  title  usurped,  lineal  descense,  place 
appointed,  nor  multitude  uf  men  approving  an  error."  It  was  their 
Confession  of  Faith  before  the  Revolution. 

t  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  i.  cap.  I. 

t  Lib.  iii.  cap.  4. 


20S 


LETTERS  ON 


Scriptures;  and  withal,  let  men  take  heed  of  over- 
reaching themselves,  when  they  would  bring  down  so 
large  a  catalogue  of  single  bishops,  from  the  first  and 
purest  times  of  the  Church,  for  it  will  be  hard  to  others 
to  believe  them,  when  Eusebius  professeth  it  so  hard 
to  find  them."* 

Dr.  Cave  admits  that  "  there  is  a  wonderful  and 
almost  irreconcileable  discrepancy  among  later  as 
well  as  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  in  determining 
the  age  and  succession  only  of  the  first  Roman  bish- 
ops."t  Bishop  Jewel,  though  he  lived  nearly  three 
hundred  years  before  you,  acknowledges  in  the  most 
explicit  terms,  that  it  cannot  be  determined,  for  he 
says  to  Harding  the  Jesuit,  who  denied  that  your 
Church  had  the  apostolical  succession,  "  But  where- 
fore telleth  us,  M.  Harding,  this  long  tale  of  succes- 
sion? Have  these  men  (the  Papists,)  their  owne  suc- 
cession in  so  safe  record?  Who  was  then  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  next  by  succession  unto  Peter?  Who  was 
the  second?  who  the  third?  who  the  fourth?  Ire- 
nams  reckoneth  them  together  in  this  order,  Petrus, 
Linus,  Anacletus,  Clemens.  Epiphanius  thus,  Petrus, 
Linus,  Cletus,  Clemens.  Optatus  thus,  Petrus,  Linus, 
Clemens,  Anacletus.  Clemens  saith  that  hee  himself 
was  next  unto  Peter,  and  then  must  the  reckoning 
goe  thus:  Petrus,  Clemens,  Linus,  Anacletus.  Heere- 
by  it  is  deer  that  of  the  foure  first  Bishops  of 
Rome,  M.  Harding  cannot  certainly  tell  us  who 
in  order  succeeded  other.  And  thus  talking  so  much 
of  succession,  they  are  not  well  able  to  blase  their  own 
succession."!  And  says  Stillingfleet,  who,  though 
he  published  his  Irenicum  when  he  was  very  young, 
never  retracted  any  of  its  leading  statements,  or  re- 
futed its  reasoning  after  he  was  made  a  bishop,  come 
we  therefore  to  Rome,  and  here  the  succession  is  "  as 
muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself;  for  here  Tertullian,  Rufi- 
nus,  and  several  others  place  Clement  next  to  Peter; 

*  Irenic.  p.  297. 

t  "Miram  ac  pene  irreconciliabilem  discrepantiam,"  &c.  Histor. 
Literaria,  p.  17. 

t  Defense  of  the  Apologie,  p.  123. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


209 


Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  set  Anacletus  before  him — - 
Epiphanius  and  Optatus  both  Anacletus  and  Cletus— 
Augustine  and  Damasus  with  others,  Anacletus,  Cle- 
tus and  Linus  all  to  precede  him.  What  way  shall 
we  find  to  extricate  ourselves  out  of  this  labyrinth?"* 
"  And  as  to  the  British  Churches,"  he  says,  "  that 
from  the  loss  of  the  records  lue  cannot  draw  down 
the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  Jipostles''  time!" 
But  if  these  things  are  so,  and  if  you  cannot  trace  the 
whole  of  the  bishops  in  the  different  Churches  through 
eighteen  centuries,  and  attain  decisive  and  satisfactory 
evidence  that  their  baptisms  and  ordinations  were 
regular,  you  can  have  no  proof  that  your  boasted 
apostolical  succession  has  been  preserved  either  in 
your  own  Church  or  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  or 
among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  or  that  there  is  a 
single  individual  on  the  face  of  the  earth  whom  you 
are  warranted  to  recognise  as  a  Christian  minister,  or 
who  has  reason  to  hope  that  he  has  a  covenanted 
title  to  the  blessings  of  salvation. 

Do  you  object  to  this  reasoning,  that  upon  the  same 
principle,  I  might  question  the  genuineness  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  require  before  it  is  admitted,  "  we 
should  be  able  to  trace  it  from  manuscript  to  manu- 
script, and  (after  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing,) 
from  one  edition  to  another,  from  the  original  writers 
to  our  own  time,"  and  see  that  no  important  altera- 

*  Irenicum,  part  ii.  chap.  G,  p.  322.  He  says,  too,  p.  321,  "At 
Antioch,  some,  as  Origen  and  Eusebius,  make  Ignatius  to  succeed 
Peter.  Jerome  makes  him  the  third  bishop,  and  placeth  Evodius  be- 
fore him.  Others  therefore  to  solve  that,  make  them  cotemporary 
bishops,  the  one  of  the  Church  of  the  Jews,  the  other  of  the  Gentiles, 
with  what  congruity  to  their  hypothesis  of  a  single  bishop  and  dea- 
cons placed  in  every  city,  I  know  not."  See  a  still  more  striking 
view  of  the  difficulties  connected  with  the  episcopal  succession  at 
Antioch,  in  Dr.  Calamy's  Defence  of  Moderate  Non-Conformity,  vol. 
i.  p.  165—169. 

Some  have  attempted  to  account  for  the  number  of  bishops  at  Rome 
who  received  that  name  near  the  same  time,  on  the  principle  that  it 
was  given  to  the  presbyter  who  presided  during  the  year  in  the  as- 
sembly of  presbyters,  though  he  had  no  pre-eminence  as  to  authority 
over  his  brethren,  just  as  tiie  individual  among  the  nine  archons  or 
chief  rulers  at  Athens,  who  presided  over  them  for  the  year,  gave 
his  name  to  the  year,  and  was  called  the  Archon  iTrawjuo;. 

14 


210 


LETTERS  ON 


tion  has  taken  place?  I  answer,  that  the  cases  are  not 
parallel,  and  that  this  objection  which  was  originally 
urged  by  Law,  and  which  has  been  often  since  re- 
peated, does  not  apply.  The  uneducated  Christian  is 
convinced  that  the  New  Testament  is  the  word  of 
God,  without  any  such  inquiries,  from  its  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  the  wants  of  his  soul,  as  a  guilty  and 
suffering  and  immortal  creature;  and  because  the 
more  carefully  he  lives  under  the  influence  of  its 
truths,  it  renders  him  at  once  more  happy  in  himself, 
and  more  like  to  his  God;  and  judging  from  its  effects, 
he  never  has  the  slightest  doubt  of  its  genuineness.* 
And  it  is  enough  to  satisfy  a  man  of  learning,  that  his 
copy  of  the  New  Testament  is  genuine,  when  he  finds 
it  correspond  with  the  earliest  manuscripts,  and  most 
ancient  versions,  such  as  the  Syriac  and  the  old  Latin, 
and  sees  these  confirmed  as  the  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Evangelists,  by  the  quotations  from  them  in 
the  works  of  the  primitive  Christians  during  the  Ji)'st 
Jive  centuries.  And  he  cares  no  more  for  any  cor- 
rupted copies  in  later  times,  than  Vossius  or  Usher, 
who  believed,  (though  I  think  without  sufficient  evi- 
dence,) in  the  genuineness  of  the  lesser  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  because  they  contained,  as  they  imagined, 
the  passages  which  were  quoted  from  them  by  the 

*  "Historians  inform  us,"  says  Fuller  in  the  introduction  to  his 
Gospel  its  own  Witness,  p.  2,  "  of  a  certain  valuable  medicine,  called 
Mithridate,  an  antidote  to  poison.  It  is  said  to  have  been  invented 
by  Mithridates,  King  of  Pontus;  that  the  receipt  of  it  was  found  in 
a  cabinet,  written  with  his  own  hand,  and  was  carried  to  Rome  by 
Pompey;  that  it  was  translated  into  verse  by  Democrates,  a  famous 
physician;  and  that  it  was  afterwards  translated  by  Galen,  from 
whom  we  have  it.  Now,  supposing  this  medicine  to  be  efficacious 
for  its  professed  purpose,  of  what  account  would  it  be  to  object  to  the 
authenticity  of  its  history  ?  If  a  modern  caviller  should  take  it  into 
his  head  to  allege  that  the  preparation  has  passed  through  so  many 
hands,  and  that  there  is  so  much  hearsay  and  uncertainty  attending 
it,  that  no  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  it,  and  that  it  had  better 
be  rejected  from  our  materia  medica,  he  would  be  asked,  has  it  not 
been  tried,  and  found  to  be  effectual,  and  that  in  a  great  variety  of 
instances  ?  Such  are  Mr.  Paine's  objections  to  the  Bible,  and  such 
is  the  answer  that  may  be  given  to  him."  And  such  is  the  way 
when  he  applies  the  New  Testament  to  himself,  in  which  the  unlet- 
tered Christian  is  convinced  of  its  genuineness. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


211 


early  Christians,  would  have  cared  for  the  larger  spu- 
rious Epistles  where  these  passages  are  wanting.  But 
it  is  a  very  different  thing  with  the  apostolical  suc- 
cession, for  though  it  had  been  preserved  uncorrupted 
during  the  first  five  centuries,  (and  you  have  no  evi- 
dence that  it  was  so,)  yet  if  it  was  vitiated  afterwards 
in  the  seventh,  or  eighth,  or  any  other  century,  it 
would  be  utterly  destroyed,  and  could  not  possibly  be 
restored,  except  by  the  mission  of  an  Apostle  to  com- 
mence a  new  ordination  of  ministers.  And  if  you  tell 
me  with  Law,  that  "  it  is  impossible  the  succession 
could  be  broken,  because  it  has  been  a  received  doc- 
trine in  every  age  of  the  Church,  that  no  ordination 
was  valid  but  that  of  bishops;  and  as  there  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  forging  orders,  or  stealing  a  bishopric  in 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  present  day,"  so  it  must 
have  been  equally  impossible  in  every  other  Church 
at  every  period;*  I  reply,  that  facts  are  stubborn 
things,  and  it  is  an  extraordinary  mode  of  reasoning 
to  infer  from  what  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
what  must  also  have  been  its  practice  in  evert/  in- 
stance, from  the  days  of  the  .Apostles.  It  has  been 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  for  example,  in  every 
age,  that  three  bishops  could  not  legally  ordain  little 
children  to  be  bishops;  and  you  might  maintain  on 
this  ground,  that  it  never  happened,  though  Bing- 
ham informs  us  that  it  was  actually  done,  "as  the 
Popes  have  ordained  some  at  seven. "t  It  has  been 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  that  no  bishop  should 
obtain  ordination  through  simony,  and  you  might 
affirm  on  this  ground  that  it  has  never  taken  place, 
though  I  trust  I  shall  prove  to  you  that  it  has  fre- 
quently been  the  case.  And  it  has  likewise  been  its 
doctrine,  that  bishops  who  xoere  drunk  could  not  be- 
stow legal  orders  on  a  bishop  or  presbyter,  and  you 
might  argue  from  this  circumstance  that  no  instance 
of  it  had  occurred,  for  it  could  not  occur  in  the  pre- 
sent day  in  the  Church  of  England.  And  yet  it  has 
been  asserted  by  Pyle  in  his  Strictures  on  Law,  and 

*  Postscript  to  his  Second  Letter  to  Bishop  Hoadly,  p.  101. 
t  History  of  Lay  Baptism,  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  622. 


212 


LETTERS  ON 


has  never  been  contradicted,  that  "  Novatian,  in  the 
third  century,  procured  himself  to  be  ordained  a 
bishop  by  the  hands  of  three  bishops  whom  he  had 
made  drunk  for  that  purpose."*  I  might  easily  have 
added  many  other  instances,  in  which  the  practice 
of  the  Church  in  regard  to  ordination,  was  directly 
the  reverse  of  some  of  her  leading  doctrines,  and  it 
might  as  consistently  be  maintained,  in  opposition  to 
the  testimony  of  the  most  respectable  historians,  that 
they  did  not  occur,  as  that  there  never  was  an  in- 
stance since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  of  an  indi- 
vidual being  made  a  bishop  whose  baptism  or  or- 
ders were  irregular,  because  it  was  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  that  both  of  them  should  be  in  strict 
accordance  with  its  canons. 

But  do  you  remind  me  with  Bishop  Skinner,  that 
the  apostolical  succession  is  often  mentioned  by  the 
fathers  as  a  distinguishing  mark  of  the  true  Church? 
For  says  Tertullian  of  some  of  the  heretics  who  exist- 
ed in  his  day,  "  Let  them  produce  the  original  of  their 
Churches,  show  the  order  of  their  bishops  so  running 
down  successively  from  the  beginning,  as  that  every 
first  bishop  among  them  shall  have  had  for  his  author 
and  predecessor  some  one  of  the  Apostles,  or  apostolic 
men  who  continued  with  the  Apostles."  And  says 
Irenaeus  of  some  others,  "  We  can  reckon  up  those 
who  were  by  the  Apostles  ordained  bishops,  and  those 
who  were  their  successors,  even  to  our  own  time. 
They  never  taught  nor  knew  any  of  the  wild  opinions 
of  these  men."t  I  might  content  myself  with  referring 

*  Second  Letter  to  a  Member  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  p. 
77.  The  fact  is  admitted  by  a  friend  of  Mr.  Law,  who  calls  himself 
P.  F.,  and  yet  in  his  letter  to  Pyle,  p.  40,  "  because  the  consecration 
was  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  by  those  who  were 
duly  commissioned  for  that  purpose,"  he  affirms  that  it  was  valid  ! 
Would  a  similar  appointment  to  any  civil  office  in  the  name  of  a 
superior,  by  persons  who  were  duly  commissioned  to  make  it,  but 
who  were  drunk  at  the  time,  be  held  valid?  Upon  the  same  princi- 
ple it  would  follow,  that  if  three  drunk  bishops  were  to  give  episcopal 
orders  to  an  idiot  or  fatuous  person  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  it 
would  be  valid,  and  he  would  keep  up  the  apostolical  succession! 

t  Tertullian  de  Praescript.,  c.  33.  Irenaeus  adversus  Haeres.  lib. 
iii.  cap.  3. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


213 


you  to  what  is  said  by  Bishop  Jewel,  in  answer  to  the 
very  same  objection,  when  it  was  urged  by  Harding 
for  the  apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  that  Papist  contended  was  wanting  in  your 
Church,*  and  with  merely  remarking,  that  when  you 
reply  to  his  arguments  I  will  reply  to  yours.t  But 
I  would  observe  further,  that  they  appeal  to  the  suc- 
cession not  to  establish  your  position,  that  an  uninter- 
rupted series  of  ministers  deriving  their  orders  from 
diocesan  bishops,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  is 
essential  to  the  existence  of  a  church,  but  only  to  show 
that  their  own  doctrine,  which  they  asserted  was 
taught  by  the  ministers  who  succeeded  the  Apostles 
in  the  different  churches,  till  the  time  in  which  they 
themselves  lived,  was  more  likely  to  be  true,  than  that 
of  these  heretics.  Such  was  the  purpose  to  which 
it  was  applied  by  Irenaeus,  for  after  mentioning  that 
it  would  be  tedious  to  go  through  the  successions  in 
all  the  Churches,  he  says,  "selecting  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  showing  them  the  tradition,"  or  as  it  is 
explained  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  the  doctrine 
which  it  has  from  the  Apostles,  ("  traditionem  Apos- 
tolorum  in  toto  mundo  manifestatam,")  and  "the  faith 
announced  to  men  by  successions  of  bishops  extending 
to  us,  we  confound  them  all."  J    And  the  same  also 

*  Defense  of  the  Apologie,  p.  122,  123. 

t  [Even  Laud  himself,  who  is  an  object  of  almost  idolatrous  vene- 
ration with  Puseyite  Episcopalians,  however  accustomed  to  extol 
the  succession  in  his  attacks  upon  the  Puritans,  was  constrained  to 
assume  a  different  language  when  in  controversy  with  Fisher  the 
Jesuit.  He  was  compelled  then  to  say,  "  Besides,  for  succession  in 
the  general,  I  shall  say  this:  it  is  a  great  happiness  where  it  may 
be  had  visible  and  continued  and  a  great  conquest  over  the  mutability 
of  this  present  world.  But  I  do  not  find  any  one  of  the  ancient  fathers 
that  makes  local,  personal,  visible  and  continued  succession,  a  neces- 
sary siizn  or  mark  of  the  Church  in  any  one  place.''''  And  then  to  make 
his  testimony  still  more  remarkable,  he  admits,  "  most  evident  it 
is,  that  the  succession  which  the  fathers  meant,  is  not  tied  to  place 
or  person,  but  it  is  tied  to  the  verity  of  doctrine."] — Am.  Editor. 

t  "Quoniam  valde  longum  est  in  hoc  tali  volumine  omnium  Ecclc- 
siarum  enumcrare  successiones,  maximae  et  antiquissimae,  et  omni- 
bus cognitac  a  gloriosissimis  duobus  Apostolis  Petro  et  Paulo  Romae 
fundatae  et  constitutae  Ecclesiae  cam  quam  habet  ab  Apostolis  tra- 
ditionem, et  annunciatam  hominibus  fidcin,  per  successiones  Epis- 


214 


LETTERS  ON 


is  the  purpose  to  which  it  is  applied  by  Tertullian,  for 
while  he  appeals  at  one  time  in  proof  of  the  purity 
of  his  principles  to  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles,  he  appeals  in  other  passages 
to  the  Churches  themselves,  which  had  their  authentic 
epistles.*  Besides,  though  these  fathers  speak  of  the 
evangelical  doctrine,  as  preserved  by  a  succession  of 
bishops,  they  never  mention  a  word  from  which  you 
can  infer  that  they  were  diocesan  bishops,  and  they 
as  frequently  represent  the  succession  as  having  been 
kept  up  by  presbyters.  "Wherefore,"  says  Irenaeus, 
"we  ought  to  obey  those  presbyters  in  the  Church  who 
have  succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the  Apostles, 
who  with  the  succession  of  the  Episcopate,  received  the 
certain  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of 
the  Father."t  And  in  the  following  chapter  he  says, 
"Such  presbyters  the  Church  nourishes  concerning 
whom  the  prophet  says,  I  will  give  your  princes  in 
peace,  and  your  bishops  in  righteousness.''^  Nay, 
Jerome  even  says,  that  "presbyters  occupy  the  place 
of  the  JJpostles,  (in  loco  Apostolorum,")  and  "  suc- 
ceed the  rfposlles,  ( Apostolico  gradui  succedere.")  No- 
thing, therefore,  can  be  more  just  than  the  remark  of 
Stillingfleet,  that  "  it  is  the  doctrine  which  they  speak 
of  as  to  succession,  and  the  persons  no  further  than  as 
they  are  the  conveyors  of  that  doctrine;  either  then  it 
must  be  proved  that  a  succession  of  some  persons  in 
apostolical  power  is  necessary  for  conveying  this 
doctrine  to  men,  or  no  argument  at  all  can  be  inferred 
from  hence,  for  their  succeeding  the  Apostles  in  power, 
because  they  are  said  to  convey  down  the  apostolical 
doctrine  to  succeeding  ages."§,  I  have  only  further  to 

coporum  pervenientes  usque  ad  nos,  indicantes,  confundimus  oinnes 
eos." 

*  Age  jam  qui  voles  curiositatem  melius  excrcere  in  negotio  salutis 
tuae  percurrere  Eeelesias  Apostolicas  apud  quas  ipsae  adhuc  Cathe- 
drae Apostolorum  suis  locis  praesidentur,  apud  quas  ipsae  authen- 
ticae  eorum  literae  recitantur,  sonantes  vocem  et  representantes  fa- 
ciem  uniuscujusque.'  Proxime  est  tibi  Achaiam  ?  habes  Corintlium. 
Si  non  longe  es  a  Macedonia,  habes  Philippos,  habes  Thessaloni- 
censes,"  &e.    De  Praescript.,  cap.  36. 

t  Adv.  Haeres.,  lib.  4,  cap.  43. 

X  Ibid.  cap.  44.  §  Irenicum,  p.  305. 


PTJSEYXTE  EPISCOPACY. 


215 


observe,  that  both  these  fathers  lived  scarcely  a  hun- 
dred years  after  the  last  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  even 
if  they  had  been  successful  in  tracing  the  bishops  of 
the  different  Churches  during  that  short  period  back 
to  these  first  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  (which  is  denied, 
as  I  have  showed  you,  by  Jewel  and  Stillingfieet,)  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  you,  or  Dr.  Hook,  or  any 
of  your  followers,  can  trace  your  succession  through 
eighteen  hundred  years,  and  prove  that  the  bishops 
from  whom  you  have  derived  your  orders,  without  a 
single  exception,  were  regularly  baptized,  and  re- 
gularly ordained.*  And  yet  all  this  is  necessary  upon 
your  principles,  before  it  is  possible  to  establish  the 
claim  of  any  minister  in  the  Church  of  England,  or 
among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  or  even  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  you  so  greatly  admire,  to  the 
honourable  character  of  a  Christian  minister,  or  the 
title  of  any  of  the  members  of  these  Churches  to  the 
blessings  of  salvation. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  Dr.  Inelt,  in  his  Origines  Anglicanae,  vol.  i.  p.  200,  says  that 
"the  difficulties  of  succession  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  betwixt  the 
year  768  and  the  year  800,  were  invincible."  And  in  p.  329  he  says, 
that  after  the  death  of  Dunstan,  "  Ethelgar,  late  abbot  of  the  new 
monastery  in  Winchester,  and  at  this  time  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
succeeded  to  the  chair  of  Canterbury  the  year  following;  but  dying 
the  same  year,  our  historians  are  not  agreed  who  succeeded,  some 
confidently  pronouncing  in  favour  of  Siricius,  others  of  Elfricus." 

In  like  manner  Keith  remarks,  respecting  the  diocese  of  Dunblane, 
in  Scotland,  that  "  the  writs  of  this  see  have  been  so  neglected,  or 
perhaps  wilfully  destroyed,  that  no  light  can  be  got  from  thence  to 
guide  us  aright  in  making  up"  even  the  list  of  ancient  bishops. 

Sir  James  Ware,  the  learned  Irish  antiquary,  acknowledges,  in  his 
account  of  the  bishops  of  Raphoe,  that  he  cannot  tell  so  much  as  the 
names  of  the  bishops  in  sonic  of  the  Irish  sees,  and  he  leaves  whole 
centuries  blank. 


216 


LETTER  XV. 

The  succession  destroyed  in  all  those  instances  in  which  individuals  who 
had  only  Presbyterian  baptism,  and  were  not  rebapt:zed.  joined  Episco- 
palian Churches,  and  were  made  presbvters  and  bishops. — Confirmation 
cannot  remedy  this  defect,  because,  as  Cranmer  admits,  '•  it  was  not  in- 
stituted by  Christ,"  nor  was  the  Redeemer  himself,  or  any  individual  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  confirmed,  and  because,  as  some  of  the  lead- 
ing English  Reformers  acknowledged,  "  it  is  a  domme  ceremony,"  and 
"has  no  premise  of  grace  connected  with  it." — Butler,  who  had  only  Pres- 
byterian baptism,  and  was  not  rebaptized,  made  a  bishop,  baptized  many, 
■who  were  afterwards  ministers,  and  made  a  number  of  bishops. — Seeker, 
■who  had  only  the  same  baptism,  made  Primate  of  England,  ordained  many 
presbvters.  and  a  number  of  bishops,  and  baptized  two  kings,  who  for  a 
long  time  were  heads  of  the  Church. — Tillotson,  though  the  son  of  a  Bap- 
tist, and  though  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  ever  baptized,  or  ordained 
a  deacon,  made  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. — Succession  destroyed  for 
more  than  two  hundred  years  in  the  important  Church  of  Alexandria,  and 
in  the  early  Church  of  Scotland,  in  consequence  of  the  ordinations  by  the 
Culdee  presbvters. — Account  of  the  presbyters  of  Iona.  their  evangelical 
doctrine,  their  Presbyterian  government,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  their 
ecclesiastical  authority  by  the  Clergy  of  Scotland. 

Reverexd  Sir, — The  charge  which  I  have  preferred 
against  you  in  the  previous  letter,  and  which  I  trust 
has  been  established,  is  apparently  uncourteous.  I 
have  asserted  that  you  hold,  without  any  thing  like 
proof  which  you  would  consider  as  satisfactory  on  any 
other  subject,  though  of  far  inferior  importance,  the 
extraordinary  opinion  that  the  apostolical  succession 
has  never  been  interrupted.  But  the  charge  which  I 
have  to  urge  against  you  in  the  present  letter  is  far 
more  serious,  for  I  affirm  that  you  hold  it  in  opposi- 
tion to  very  strong  and  decisive  evidence  that  it  has 
actually  been  broken. 

You  contend  that  orders  which  have  been  ob- 
tained from  the  hands  of  Presbyterian  ministers  can- 
not be  valid,  because  the}7  were  received  from  men 
who  had  no  right  to  bestow  them,  and  whom  you 
consider  as  schismatics.  Now,  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, it  is  obvious  that  baptism,  when  administered 
by  the  very  same  individuals,  must  be  equally  invalid, 
because  in  your  opinion  they  had  no  right  to  give  it ; 
and  those  who  have  received  it,  and  who  have  not 
been  rebaptized,  cannot  be  Christians.    Nor  will  it 


PTJSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


217 


obviate  this  difficulty  to  allege,  with  Archdeacon 
Daubeny,  that  what  was  defective  in  such  baptisms 
may  be  supplied  in  confirmation,  when  those  who 
have  been  the  subjects  of  them  join  your  Church.  In 
the  first  place,  I  see  no  warrant  in  Scripture  for  the 
rite  of  confirmation,  or  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
a  bishop  on  those  who  are  baptized;  and  if  the  Re- 
deemer did  not  appoint  it,  I  cannot  perceive  how  it 
can  be  accompanied  by  his  blessing,  or  followed  by 
his  acceptance,  or  how  it  can  supply  an  essential  and 
momentous  defect  in  the  mode  of  administering  one 
of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church.    He  himself  did  not 
perform  it  during  his  personal  ministry  upon  any  who 
were  baptized,  and  surely  if  the  communication  of  the 
sanctifying  and  confirming  influences  of  the  Spirit,  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  after  an  individual  has  been 
baptized,  be  necessary  now,  before  he  is  admitted  to 
the  holy  communion,  it  was  no  less  necessary  in  the 
days  of  the  Saviour.    And  the  only  two  instances 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  Apos- 
tles laid  their  hands  on  those  who  had  been  baptized, 
(Acts  ch.  viii.  and  xix.)  were  cases  in  which  miracu- 
lous gifts  were  communicated,  which  cannot,  I  pre- 
sume, be  imparted  at  present  to  those  who  are  con- 
firmed by  any  bishop.    "After  that  the  bishops  had 
left  preachyng,"  says  Tindal,  when  speaking  of  this 
rite,  as  performed  merely  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
without  any  of  the  Popish  ceremonies,  "  then  fayned 
they  this  domme  ceremonie  of  confirmation,  to  have 
somewhat  at  the  least  whereby  they  might  raigne 
over  their  dioceses.    And  as  to  that  they  layd  against 
him  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  where  Peter 
and  John  put  their  hands  on  the  Samarilanes,"  he 
"denies  that  it  will  establish  it.    God  had  made  the 
Apostles  a  promise,  that  he  woulde  with  such  mira- 
cles confirme  their  preaching  and  move  others  to  the 
faith.    The  Apostles,  therefore,  beleved  and  prayed 
God  to  fulfill  his  promise,  and  God  for  his  truthe's 
sake  even  so  did."*    So  decidedly  was  Cranmer  of 

*  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man,  p.  152.  of  his  works.    See  also  his 
Aunswere  to  Syr  Thomas  More,  p.  276,  277. 


218 


LETTERS  ON 


the  same  opinion,  though  he  was  obliged  to  allow 
this  rite  to  remain,  that  when  he  was  asked  his  judg- 
ment respecting  it,  along  with  "  divers  bishops  and 
doctors  in  commission,"  he  gave  the  following  answer 
to  the  question,  "Whether  confirmation  be  instituted 
by  Christ?" 

"  There  is  no  place  in  Scripture  that  declareth  this 
sacrament  to  be  instituted  by  Christ.* 

"  Secondly,  these  acts  were  done  by  a  special  gift 
given  to  the  Apostles  for  the  confirmation  of  God's 
word  at  that  time. 

"  Thirdly,  the  said  special  gift  doth  not  now  re- 
main with  the  successors  of  the  *ipostles." 

And  said  Dr.  Edmonds,  Master  of  Peter  House  in 
Cambridge,  "  Confirmation  is  not  a  sacrament  of  the 
new  law  instituted  by  Christ  by  any  expressed  word 
in  the  Scripture,  but  only  by  the  tradition  of  the 
fathers. 

"  Confirmation  hath  no  promise  of  any  invisible 
grace  by  Christ  by  any  expressed  word  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. 

"  There  be  no  promises  of  grace  made  by  Christ 
to  them  that  receive  confirmation.''^  The  same  also 
was  the  opinion  of  Jewel,  who  says,  in  his  Treatise 
of  the  Sacraments,  p.  264,  "  Confirmation  was  not 
ordained  by  Christ."  And  though  Bancroft  stated, 
at  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court,  that  he  con- 
sidered it  as  "  founded  on  Heb.  vi.  2,  where  it  is  rep- 
resented as  a  part  of  the  Apostles'  Catechisme,!  and 
not  so  much  upon  the  places  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles," as  some  of  the  fathers  had  often  showed,  yet  it 
is  evident  that  the  laying  on  of  hands,  which  is  referred 

*  Cyprian  calls  confirmation  and  baptism  two  sacraments.  Epist.  72. 

Bishop  Bilson,  as  we  have  seen,  not  only  admits  that  it  was  the 
extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit  which  were  bestowed  on  the  Sama- 
ritan converts,  (Acts  viii.)  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  in  particular  the  gift  of  tongues,  but  says,  that  this  and 
these  other  gifts  were  imparted  to  them  to  qualify  them  for  preach- 
ing the  Gospel  immediately  to  them  who  understood  these  languages. 
Can  bishops  bestow  any  such  gifts  now  on  those  whom  they  confirm  ? 

t  Append,  to  first  vol.  of  Strype's  Memorials,  p.  88,  235-238. 

t  Dr.  Barlow's  Account  of  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court,  p.  32. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


219 


to  in  that  passage,  denotes  rather  ordination  to  the 
ministry,  which,  as  Archbishop  Usher  acknowledges, 
is  far  more  worthy  of  being  described  as  one  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  than 
the  rite  of  confirmation.* 

And  the  same  is  the  opinion  of  your  fellow-tracta- 
rians,  for  when  speaking  of  Presbyterians,  Indepen- 
dents and  Methodists,  (Tract  36,)  they  say,  "  These 
three  do  not  receive  or  teach  the  truth  respecting  the 
doctrine  of  laying  on  of  hands,  which  St.  Paul  classes 
among  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity,  (Heb. 
vi.  2;)  and  by  which  the  Christian  ministry  receives 
its  commission  and  authority  to  administer  the  word 
and  sacraments." 

And,  2dly,  even  admitting  that  it  may  be  lawfully 
performed,  though,  as  is  mentioned  in  an  old  Walden- 
sian  work,  "  Christ,  the  pattern  of  all  his  Church, 
ivas  not  confirmed  in  his  own  person^  and  it  has  not 
been  instituted  by  him,  but  rests  solely  on  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  fathers,  and  no  grace  has  been  promised 
to  those  who  receive  it,"  not  an  instance  can  be 
pointed  out  in  which  it  was  administered  to  any  one 
whose  baptism  was  invalid. X    On  what  principle, 

*  Melancthon,  in  his  Apology  for  the  Confession  of  Augsburgh, 
torn.  i.  of  his  Works,  fol.  95,  says,  in  the  name  of  the  Lutheran 
Churches,  "  Confirmatio  et  extrema  unctio  sunt  ritus  accepti  a  Patri- 
bus."  And  in  the  Saxon  Confession  which  he  drew  up,  he  says,  fol. 
129,  "  ideo  non  servantur  in  nostris  ecclesiis." 

t  Sir  Samuel  Morland's  History  of  the  Waldcnses,  p.  142.  Dr. 
Gilly  has  been  very  anxious  to  show  that  they  were  Episcopalians. 
They  not  only,  however,  reject  confirmation  in  the  passage  quoted 
.above,  but  add  immediately  afterwards,  that  Ciirist  did  not  require  it 
or  unction  in  baptism.  "  And,  therefore,  sucli  a  sacrament  was  intro- 
duced to  seduce  the  people,  and  that  by  sucli  means  they  might  be 
drawn  more  easily  to  believe  the  ceremonies  and  the  necessity  of 
bishops." 

"  It  has  been  inferred,"  says  Dr.  Jamicson,  in  his  Historical  Ac- 
count of  the  Culdces,  p.  20G,  "  from  the  language  of  Bernard,  that 
confirmation  was  quite  in  disuse,  if  at  all  ever  known  among  the 
Irish  Culdecs;  for,  in  his  Life  of  Malachy,  he  says,  that  he  anew 
instituted  the  sacrament  of  confirmation." 

t  It  might  be  maintained  with  greater  consistency,  that  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  a  divine  institution,  would  make 
up,  on  the  part  of  a  Presbyterian  who  joins  an  Episcopalian  Church, 
for  the  want  both  of  confirmation  and  baptism,  than  that  confirma- 


220 


LETTERS  OX 


then,  baptism,  when  it  has  been  dispensed  by  Presby- 
terians, whom  yon  consider  as  schismatics,  and  as 
having  no  authority  to  perform  it,  can  be  regarded 
merely  as  defective,  and  not  as  a  perfect  nullity,  like 
Presbyterian  ordination,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand. 
Yon  cannot,  however,  be  ignorant,  that  many  who 
had  received  only  Presbyterian  baptism  joined  your 
Church  soon  after  the  Restoration,  and  others  since 
that  time;  nay,  that  some  of  them,  though  they  were 
not  rebaptized,  have  been  admitted  among  your 
clergy,  and  have  risen  to  places  of  power  and  influ- 
ence. Two  cases  especially  occurred  during  the  last 
century,  in  which  young  Presbyterians,  without  being 
rebaptized,  entered  your  communion,  attained  your 
highest  ecclesiastical  dignities,  and  contributed  to  an 
extent  which  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  to  break  the 
succession.  One  of  them  was  Butler,  who,  while  he 
was  Rector  of  Stanhope,  baptized  a  number  of  the 
members  of  your  Church,  some  of  whom  may  have 
become  ministers;  and  who,  while  he  was  Bishop, 
first  of  Bristol,  and  afterwards  of  Durham,  ordained 
many  clergymen,  and  assisted  in  the  consecration  of 
many  bishops  from  whom  your  present  bishops  and 
ministers  have  descended.  If,  therefore,  the  baptisms 
which  he  administered,  and  the  orders  which  he  gave 

tion,  which  is  a  mere  human  invention,  can  make  up  for  the  want  of 
baptism. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  (Tract  41,  p.  7,)  that  all 
that  is  required  from  an  individual  for  confirmation  is  to  be  able  "  to 
say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Commandments,  no- 
thing being  said  of  a  change  of  heart,  or  spiritual  atFections."  And 
yet,  upon  this  mere  external  profession,  the  children  receive  the  impo- 
sition of  the  bishop's  hands,  "to  certify  them  by  this  sign  of  God's 
favour  and  gracious  goodness  towards  them,"  because  they  can  repeat 
these  things,  after  which  they  are  admitted  to  the  communion.  How 
different  is  the  practice  of  faithful  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  where  there  is  no  such  unauthorised  rite  as  confirmation,  to 
which  no  grace  is  promised,  but  who  meet  with  those  young  indi- 
viduals who  are  candidates  for  communion  for  a  number  of  weeks,  or 
even  months,  before,  pray  with  them,  instruct  them  carefully  in  the 
great  truths  of  religion,  and  in  the  end  of  the  institution  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper,  and  endeavour  to  impress  them  with  a  sense  of 
the  necessity  of  faith  and  personal  piety  to  acceptable  communion, 
and  who,  upon  their  being  encouraged  to  form  a  favourable  opinion 
of  them  as  to  these  points,  admit  them  to  that  privilege  ! 


PTTSEl'ITE  EPISCOPACY. 


221 


to  those  who  afterwards  gave  orders  to  others,  in 
many  of  your  dioceses,  were  invalid,  because  he  him- 
self was  unbaptized,  what  must  be  the  spiritual  con- 
dition of  your  Church?  The  other  was  his  friend  and 
companion,  Seeker,  who,  as  the  son  of  a  Dissenting 
Presbyterian  minister,  had  only  Presbyterian  baptism, 
and  was  never  rebaptized.  After  joining  your  Church 
he  was  promoted  first  to  be  Rector  of  St.  James's,  then 
successively  to  be  Bishop  of  Bristol  arid  Oxford,  and 
latterly  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  Primate  of  all 
England.*  But  if  he  himself  was  not  a  Christian,  and 
yet  baptized  not  only  many  of  the  ordinary  members 
of  your  Church,  but  George  the  Third,t  whom  he  also 

*  "  Mr.  Thomas  Seeker,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canterbury," 
says  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  vol.  xii.  of  his  Miscellaneous 
Works,  p.  171,  "  was  the  son  of  a  dissenting  minister,  born  in  1693, 
was  baptized  after  the  form  of  that  Church,  and  studied  at  three  dis- 
senting schools  successively  until  he  was  nineteen  years  of  age,  when 
lie  went  to  the  University  of  Oxford,  and  afterwards  entered  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  England.  He  was  in  1732  nominated  one 
of  the  Chaplains  to  the  King;  in  1733,  was  appointed  Rector  of  St. 
James's.  January  5,  1734,  he  was  elevated  to  the  Bishopric  of  Bris- 
tol, to  that  of  Oxford  in  1737;  in  1750  exchanged  a  prebend  in  Dur- 
ham, and  the  Rectory  of  St.  James's  for  the  Deanery  of  St.  Paul's, 
and  in  1758  he  was  named  and  confirmed  to  the  Archbishopric  of 
Canterbury.  He  officiated  at  the  funeral  of  King  George  the  Second, 
and  at  the  proclamation  of  his  present  Majesty,  whom  he  had  bap- 
tized when  Rector  of  St.  James's,  and  whom  with  his  Queen  he  mar- 
ried, and  crowned  8th  September  1761,  and  on  the  8th  September 
1762,  he  baptized  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  afterwards  several  of  their 
Majesties'  children.  We  hear  nothing  of  his  ever  having  been  re* 
baptized." 

t  The  same  thing  happened  to  Charles  the  First,  'vhom  Episcopa- 
lians commonly  denominate  tlie.  Royal  Martyr  for  Episcopacy,  and 
yet  whom  Dr.  Fusey,  and  his  followers  among  the  Scottish  Episcopa- 
lians, cannot  consider  as  a  Christian,  though  they  keep  the  anniver- 
sary of  his  death,  for  he  was  baptized  by  a  Scottish  Presbyterian  min. 
ister  in  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Dunfermline,  and  was  never  rebaptized. 
"In  the  month  of  December  this  year,  (16U0,)"  says  Wodrow  the 
historian,  "  Mr.  David  Lindsay  baptized  the  King's  son,  Charles  the 
First,  who  was  his  father's  successor,  (at  Falkland,  born  November 
19,)  in  Dunfermline,  upon  Tuesday,  the  23d  of  December  1600,  as  a 
book  in  the  Lyon's  Office  at  Edinburgh  bears."  But  how  much  more 
extraordinary  must  have  been  the  situation  of  the  Church  of  England 
during  the  reign  of  George  the  Third,  when  neither  that  pious  and 
venerable  Monarch,  the  Head  of  that  Church,  nor  Archbishop  Seeker, 
the  Primate  of  the  whole  kingdom,  could  be  Christians  !  And  in  what 
a  light  docs  it  exhibit  the  conduct  of  our  present  gracious  Sovereign, 


222 


LETTERS  ON 


married,  and  George  the  Fourth,  hoth  of  whom  were 
for  a  long  time  the  heads  of  that  Church,  and  if,  as  you 
must  be  well  aware,  he  ordained  many  bishops,  priests 
and  deacons,  the  injury  which  he  must  have  done  to 
the  apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of  England  is 
absolutely  incalculable.  As  you  cannot,  therefore, 
raise  him  and  his  illustrious  friend,  and  others  of  your 
bishops  who  had  only  Presbyterian  baptism,  from  the 
mansions  of  the  tomb,  and  get  them  rebaptized  and 
re-ordained,  nor  raise  up  along  with  them  the  bishops 
and  clergy  whose  orders  they  vitiated,  and  get  the 
error  corrected,  not  only  in  the  orders  of  the  dead,  but 
in  those  of  the  living,  I  trust  that  we  shall  hear  no 
more  from  you,  or  Dr.  Short,  or  Mr.  Newman,  or  Mr. 
Gladstone,  of  your  unbroken  succession.  And  I  sin- 
cerely hope,  that  you  will  inquire  anew  into  the  truth 
of  a  doctrine  which  leads  unavoidably  to  these  tremen- 
dous consequences,  and  that  none  of  you  will  in  future 
join  in  the  lofty  and  presumptuous  assertion,  which 
you  have  already  so  confidently  made,  that  "  yours  is 
the  only  Church  in  the  realm  ivhich  has  a  right  to  be 
quite  sure  that  she  is  a  Church  of  Christ,  and  has 
the  Lord's  body  to  give  to  his  people." 

But  if  the  succession  has  been  broken  in  all  those 
instances  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters  have  been 
baptized  by  Presbyterians,  and  have  not  been  re- 
baptized,  you  will  scarcely  deny  that  it  has  been  still 
more  seriously  injured,  if  any  of  your  prelates  have 
been  raised  even  to  the  highest  dignity  in  your 
Church,  and  yet  were  never  baptized,  either  by  a 

in  inviting  her  relation,  the  King  of  Prussia,  who,  as  he  was  neither 
baptized  by  a  bishop,  nor  by  a  minister  who  was  ordained  by  a  bishop, 
cannot,  according  to  Dr.  Hook  or  Mr.  Gladstone,  be  a  Christian,. to 
stand  as  godfather  to  the  young  Prince  of  Wales  !  The  mind  revolts 
at  principles  which  lead  to  such  consequences.  And  yet  these  are  the 
consequences  of  the  present  doctrine  of  the  apostolical  succession, 
which  is  gaining  rapidly  numerous  converts  in  the  English  Univer- 
sities, and  for  the  propagation  of  which  in  the  New  College  of  what 
the  Scottish  Episcopalians  modestly  denominate  the  Reformed  Catho- 
lic Church  of  Scotland,  the  English  Society  for  Propagating  Chris- 
tian Knowledge  have,  through  the  strenuous  advocacy  of  Mr.  Dodes- 
worth,  a  most  zealous  Puseyite,  supported  by  Mr.  W.  Gladstone,  voted 
a  thousand  pounds. 


PITSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


223 


layman,  Pesbyterian,  or  Episcopalian.  And  yet 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  the  case  with 
Tillotson,  who  occupied  for  a  long  time  the  See  of 
Canterbury,  and  the  primacy  of  England.  No  evi- 
dence has  been  produced,  though  it  has  been  often 
demanded,  of  his  having  been  ordained  a  deacon,  and 
yet  he  was  permitted  to  hold  the  office  of  a  deacon. 
Nor  will  it  at  all  appear  wonderful,  that  such  irregu- 
larities should  have  been  tolerated  at  that  period, 
when  you  consider  what  has  taken  place  almost  in 
our  own  day.  "  Even  in  later  and  more  civilized  and 
enlightened  times,"  says  Dr.  Whately,  "  the  probabi- 
lity of  an  irregularity,  though  very  greatly  diminish- 
ed, is  yet  diminished  only,  and  not  absolutely  de- 
stroyed. Even  in  the  memory  of  persons  living, 
there  existed  a  bishop,  concerning  whom  there  tvas 
so  much  mystery  and  uncertainly  prevailing,  as  to 
when,  where,  and  by  whom  he  had  been  ordained, 
that  doubts  existed  in  the  minds  of  many  persons, 
whether  he  had  ever  been  ordained  at  all."  I  do 
not,  however,  refer  so  much  to  his  want  of  deacon's 
orders,  and  the  invalidity  of  all  the  baptisms  which 
he  administered,  nor  to  the  invalidity  of  his  priest's 
orders,  which  he  received  from  Sydeserf,  whose  own 
orders  were  uncanonical,  and  who,  as  he  was  a  Scot- 
tish bishop,  had  no  right  to  confer  orders  in  England, 
who,  we  are  told  by  Birch,  "  ordained  all  those  of  the 
English  clergy  who  came  to  him,  without  demanding 
either  oaths  (of  canonical  obedience,)  or  subscriptions 
(to  articles)  of  them,  merely  for  a  subsistence,  from 
the  fees  for  the  orders  granted  by  him, — for  he  was 
very  poor;" — I  say  I  do  not  refer  so  much  to  either  of 
these  circumstances,  as  to  his  want  of  baptism.  He 
did  not  receive  that  ordinance  in  his  infancy,  for  his 
father  was  a  Baptist ;  and  though  he  was  often 
challenged  to  produce  any  evidence  of  his  having 
been  baptized  afterwards,  none  was  brought  forward  ; 
and  unless  it  can  be  furnished  by  you,  or  by  some  of 
your  friends  in  the  present  day,  or  by  some  of  the 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  we  must  consider 
him  as  unbaptized.    But  if  the  man  who  was  so  long 


224 


LETTERS  ON 


the  Primate  of  that  Church,  and  who  made  so  many 
bishops,  and  priests,  and  deacons,  had  not  even  such 
baptism  as  could  be  obtained  from  a  midwife,  I  leave 
it  to  you  to  say  what  must  be  the  value  of  your  own 
orders,  or  of  the  orders  of  any  of  the  clergy  of  your 
Church,  who  hold  your  principles,  and  what  must  be 
the  virtue  of  their  ministrations,  and  what  the  pros- 
pects of  final  salvation  to  those  who  hear  them.* 

But  passing  from  your  Church,  I  would  further  re- 
mark, that  the  succession  must  have  been  injured  in 
all  these  instances  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  not  only  baptized,  but  were  ordained  by  pres- 
byters, and  were  not  re-ordained.  Now  that  this  was 
the  case  from  the  earliest  ages  is  beyond  a  doubt.  It 
was  the  case  in  the  important  See  of  Alexandria, 
where,  as  Usher  stated  to  Charles  the  First,  upon  the 
authority  of  Jerome  and  Eutychius,  the  presbyters 
for  a  long  time  made  not  only  presbyters,  but  bishops. 
"For  even  from  Mark  the  Evangelist,"  said  the  first 
of  these  writers,  "to  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and  Diony- 
sius,  the  presbyters  always  named  as  bishop  one 
chosen  from  among  themselves,  and  placed  him  in  a 
higher  degree,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  an  army 
should  make  an  emperor,  or  the  deacons  should 
choose  from  among  themselves  any  one  whom  they 
knew  to  be  industrious,  and  should  call  him  archdea- 
con, "t    Upon  which  Willet,  as  was  noticed  formerly, 

*  "  In  Mr.  Percival's  Catalogus,"  says  the  author  of  an  exceed- 
ingly able  article  on  Scottish  Prelacy,  in  the  Presbyterian  Review 
p.  30,  note,  "there  occur  the  following  names,  of  whose  consecration 
there  are  no  records,  and  of  course  no  evidence  extant,  viz.  William 
Downham  of  Chester,  in  1561  ;  J.  Stanley  of  Sodor,  1573;  J.  May 
of  Carlisle,  1577;  G.  Loyd  of  Sodor,  1600;  translated  to  Chester, 
1604;  B.  Potter,  Carlisle,  1628;  William  Leorster,  Sodor,  1633;  R. 
Parr,  Sodor,  1635;  H.  Feme,  Chester,  1666;  E.  Rainbow,  Carlisle, 
1644;  J.  Wilkins,  Chester,  1668;  H.  Bndgman,  Sodor,  1671;  T. 
Smith,  Carlisle,  1684;  N.  Strafford,  Chester,  1689.  Even  the  cele- 
brated Pearson  of  Chester,  so  well  known  by  his  works  on  the  Creed 
and  on  Ignatius,  has  no  extant  record  of  his  consecration.  Nor  has 
Lake,  who,  in  1684,  was  translated  from  Sodor  to  Bristol,  and  in 
the  following  year  to  Chichester;  and  of  very  necessity,  no  man  who 
has  received  orders  thiou»h  any  of  these  has  or  can  have  any  evidence 
that  he  is  in  orders  at  all." 

t  "  Nam  et  Alexandriae  a  Marco  Evangelista  usque  ad  Heraclam 
et  Dionysium  Episcopos  Presbyteri  semper  unuin  ex  se  electum  in 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


225 


remarks,  "  So  it  would  seeme  that  the  very  election 
of  a  bishop  in  those  days  without  any  other  circum- 
stances was  his  ordination."  And  says  Stillingfleet, 
who  answers  at  considerable  length  the  numerous 
objections  urged  by  Bisbop  Pearson  to  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage,  "it  appears  that  by  election  he 
means  conferring  authority  by  the  instances  he 
brings  to  tbat  purpose;  as  the  Roman  armies  choosing 
their  emperor,  who  had  no  other  power  but  what 
they  received  by  the  length  of  the  sword,  and  the 
deacons  choosing  their  archdeacon,  who  had  no  other 
power  but  what  was  merely  conferred  by  the  choice 
of  the  college  of  deacons."*  And  says  Eutychius, 
who  is  represented  by  Ebn  Abi  Osbae  as  a  "man 
well  acquainted  with  the  sciences  and  institutions 
which  were  in  use  among  the  Christians,"!  and 
whose  testimony  coincides  with  that  of  Jerome, 
"  Hananias  was  the  first  of  the  patriarchs  who  were 
set  over  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  For  Mark  the 
Evangelist  appointed  along  with  the  Patriarch  Hana- 
nias twelve  presbyters,  who  should  continue  along 
with  the  Patriarch,  so  that  when  the  patriarchate 
became  vacant  they  should  choose  one  of  the  twelve 
presbyters,  upon  whose  head  the  other  eleven  laying 
their  hands,  should  themselves  bless  him  and  create 
him  a  patriarch  ;  and  then  they  should  choose  some 
distinguished  man  in  his  room  who  was  made  pa- 
triarch, that  so  there  might  be  always  twelve.  Nor 
did  this  institution  respecting  the  presbyters  at  Alex- 
andria, that  they  should  create  the  patriarchs  from  the 
twelve  presbyters,  cease  till  the  time  of  Alexander, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  was  of  that  number 

excelsiori  gradu  collocatum  Episcopum  nominabant;  quomodo  is 
exercitus  imperatorem  faciat,  aut  diaconi  eligant  de  so  quern  indus- 
trium  noverint,  et  Archidiaconurn  vocent."    Epist.  85,  ad  Evagrium. 
*  Irenicum,  p.  274. 

+  "Scientiarum  et  institutorum  quae  apud  Christianos  in  usu  sunt 
pcritus."  Selden  represents  him  as  spoken  of  in  terms  of  high  respect 
by  ancient  writers.  And  Mosheim  says,  vol.  ii.  p.  414,  that  "no 
author  among  (lie  Arabians  attained  higher  reputation  among  the 
Arabians  than  lie,"  and  refers  to  Fabricius's  Uibliographia  Anti- 
quaria,  p.  179. 

15 


226 


LETTERS  ON 


three  hundred  and  eighteen.  But  he  forbade  the 
presbyters  afterwards  to  create  the  patriarch,  and  de- 
creed that  when  the  patriarch  was  dead  the  bishops 
should  assemble,  who  should  ordain  the  patriarch. 
Also  he  decreed,  that  when  the  patriarchate  was 
vacant,  they  should  choose  either  from  any  quarter, 
or  from  these  twelve  presbyters,  or  from  others,  some 
eminent  man  of  approved  probity,  and  should  create 
him  patriarch.  And  thus  vanished  that  more  ancient 
institution,  according  to  which  the  patriarchate  was 
wont  to  be  created  by  the  presbyters,  and  there  suc- 
ceeded in  its  place  the  decree  respecting  the  creation 
of  the  patriarch  by  the  bishops."*  And  as  it  is  ob- 
vious that  he  could  have  no  inducement  to  make  this 
statement,  but  a  regard  to  truth,  because,  as  he  him- 
self was  a  patriarch,  it  was  fitted  to  lessen  the  re- 
spectability of  his  order,  inasmuch  as  it  showed  a 
deviation  from  the  mode  of  creating  the  patriarchs, 
which  had  been  recommended  by  the  Evangelist;  and 
as  it  is  confirmed  by  Jerome,  who  was  born  only 
about  eighty  years  after  the  change  took  place,  and 
who  had  the  best  opportunities  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  fact,  as  he  lived  much  in  the  East,  it  is  per- 
fectly capricious  on  the  part  of  Episcopalians  to  ques- 
tion their  testimony.  Usher,  who  was  one  of  the 
most  able  and  learned  of  their  bishops,  examined  the 
evidence  in  former  times  with  the  utmost  care,  and 
declared  himself  to  be  satisfied,  and  there  appears  to 

*"Hananias  fuit  Patriarcharum  qui  Alexandriae  praefecti  sunt 
primus.  Constituit  autem  Evangelista  Marcus  una  cum  Hanania 
patriarclia  duodecim  presbyteros  qui  nempe  cum  patriarclia  manerent, 
adeo  ut  cum  vacaret  patriarchatus,  unum  c  duodecim  prcsbyteris  eli- 
gerent,  cujus  capiti  reliqui  undecim  manus  imponentes  ipsi  benedi- 
cerent,  et  patriarcham  crearent;  deinde  virum  aliquem  insignem 
eligerent  quern  secum  presbyterum  constituercnt  loco  ejus  qui  factus 
est  patriarclia,  ut  ita  semper  extarent  duodecim.  Neque  desiit  Alex- 
andriae institum  hoc  de  prcsbyteris,  ut  scilicet  patriarchas  crearent  ex 
prcsbyteris  duodecim  usque  ad  tempora  Alexandri  Patriarchae  Alex- 
andria, qui  fuit  ex  numero  illo  treccntorum  et  octodecim,"  &c.  An- 
nals, vol.  i.  p.  331. 

Gibbon  says  that  Jerome's  statement  "  receives  a  remarkable 
confirmation  from  the  Patriarch  Eutychius,  whose  testimony  he 
knew  not  how  to  reject  in  spite  of  all  the  objections  of  the  learned 
Pearson." 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACT. 


227 


be  no  good  reason  why  it  ought  not  to  satisfy  them 
now.  If  they  have  perfect  confidence  in  the  lists  of 
bishops  of  some  of  the  Churches  given  by  Eusebius, 
though  he  lived  nearly  three  hundred  years  after  the 
time  when  they  commenced,  nothing  but  a  conviction 
that  it  bears  so  strongly  againsf  diocesan  Episcopacy, 
and  ihe  apostolical  succession,  could  prompt  them  to 
doubt  the  statement  of  Jerome,  who  lived  so  much 
nearer  to  the  event  which  he  reports,  corroborated  as 
it  is  by  another  individual  who  himself  presided  over 
the  See  of  Alexandria,  and  might  have  access  to  its 
records,  and  who  will  he  acknowledged  at  least  to  be 
an  impartial  witness.  But  if  the  bishops  of  Alexan- 
dria, as  Usher  affirmed,  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  were  made  by  presbyters,  either  by  election 
without  ordination,  or  by  laying  their  hands  on  their 
heads,  and  setting  them  apart  to  their  office,  I  would 
like  to  be  informed  whether  the  succession  must  not 
have  been  broken  even  at  the  the  very  beginning, 
during  that  long  period.  And  as  Alexandria  was  one 
of  the  largest  and  most  populous  bishoprics  in  the 
early  Church,  I  shall  leave  it  to  any  candid  individual 
to  say,  whether  he  can  estimate  the  amount  of  the 
disorder  and  confusion  which  may  have  been  intro- 
duced into  other  sections  of  the  Christian  Church, 
by  clergymen  coming  into  them,  whose  orders,  upon 
your  principles,  must  have  been  irregular  and  invalid. 

Another  part  of  the  Church  where  there  was  no 
succession  of  diocesan  bishops  for  several  centuries, 
was  the  early  Church  of  Scotland.  According  to  the 
testimony  of  all  our  historians,  this  part  of  the  island 
embraced  Christianity  in  the  year  203,  and  no  bishop 
appeared  in  it  till  the  year  429,  or  430,  when  Palla- 
dius  was  despatched  thither  by  Pope  Celestine.  Such 
is  the  statement  of  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  late  Bishop  Skinner,  "  lived  in  the  time 
when,  and  the  place  where  Palladius  resided"  before 
he  came  to  Britain  ;  for  says  he,  "  two  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  years  before  Scotland  was  converted,  or 
in  the  year  430,  Palladius  being  ordained  by  Pope 
Celestine,  was  sent  to  the  Scots  believing  in  Christ,  as 


228 


LETTERS  ON 


their  first  bishop,  (primus  episcopus.)  It  is  confirmed 
by  Bede,  though  a  zealous  Episcopalian,  who  repeats 
the  very  words  of  Prosper.*  John  of  Fordun,  a  re- 
spectable writer,  and  not,  "  a  dreaming  monk,  anxious 
merely  for  the  honour  of  his  order,"  as  Bishop  Lloyd 
calls  him,  says,  that  "  before  the  coming  of  Palladius, 
the  Scots  had,  as  teachers  of  the  faith,  and  adminis- 
trators of  the  sacraments,  only  presbyters  and  monks, 
following  the  custom  of  the  primitive  ChurchA  And 
a  similar  statement  is  contained  in  the  Breviary  of 
Aberdeen,  where  the  Scots,  before  the  time  of  Palla- 
dius, are  described  as  "  having  had  for  teachers  of  the 
faith,  and  ministers  of  the  sacraments,  presbyters  and 
monks,  following  only  the  right  and  custom  of  the 
primitive  Chitrch-X"  And  says  John  Mair  or  Major, 
of  whom  Bishop  Lesley  remarks,  that  "  he  was  more 
studious  of  truth  than  eloquence, §  in  the  year  of  our 

*  Chron.  Tempor.  p.  26.    Hist,  lib.  i.  c.  13. 

+  Scotichronicon,  lib.  iii.  c.  8.  Sir  George  Mackenzie,  in  his  De- 
fence of  the  Ruyal  Line,  p.  20,  says  that  "he  was  a  presbyter  and 
not  a  monk,  as  St.  Asaph  calls  him." 

Dr.  Jamieson,  in  his  historical  account  of  the  Culdecs,  p.  97,  says, 
"  It  is  a  singular  circumstance,  that  however  much  later  writers 
have  affected  to  despise  the  testimony  of  Fordun  witli  respect  to  the 
Culdees,  the  Canons  of  St.  Andrews  did  not  hesitate  to  avail  them- 
selves of  it,  (I  quote  the  passage,  chiefly  to  show  the  general  respect- 
ability of  Fordun,)  when  it  was  subservient  to  their  credit  in  the 
meantime,  though  at  the  expense  of  giving  a  severe  blow  to  Episco- 
pacy in  an  early  age.  As  there  had  been  a  dispute,  at  a  meeting  of 
Parliament  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  with  respect  to  precedency  be- 
tween the  priors  of  St.  Andrews  and  Kelso;  the  King  having  heard 
the  arguments  on  both  sides,  determined  it  in  favour  of  the  former,  on 
this  principle,  that  he  was  entitled  to  priority  in  rank,  whose  monas- 
tery was  prior  as  to  foundation."  "  We  have  a  proof  of  this,"  says 
Fordun,  "from  St.  Columba,  who  is  represented  as  Arch-Abbut  of  all 
Ireland,  and  who  was  held  in  such  pre-eminence  among  the  inhabi- 
tants, that  (and  he  was  only  a  presbyter)  he  is  said  to  have  confirmed 
and  consecrated  all  the  Irish  bishops  of  his  time."  (Scotichron.  lib, 
vi.  c.  49.)  "The  whole  of  this  chapter,"  says  Dr.  Jamieson,  "not 
excepting  the  passage  last  mentioned,  has  been  embodied  in  the  Re- 
gister of  St.  Andrews." 

t  "  Habentes  fidei  doctores  et  sacramentorum  ministros  presby- 
teros  et  monaehos  primitiva?  ecclcshe  solummodo  sequentes  ritum  et 
consuetudinem."    In  Iulic,  fol.  24,  25. 

§  "  Veritatis  ubique  quam  eloquentiae  studiosior."  Hist.  Scot.  lib. 
ix.  p.  414. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACT. 


229 


Lord  429,  Pope  Celestinus  consecrated  Saint  Palladius 
a  bishop,  and  sent  him  to  Scotland,  for  the  Scots  were 
previously  instructed  in  the  faith  by  priests  and  monks, 
without  bishops."*  Here,  then,  was  another  part  of 
the  Church,  which,  according  to  the  united  testimony 
of  these  writers,  all  of  whom  were  Episcopalians, 
was  without  bishops  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years,  and  which  was  instructed  and  governed  by 
presbyters,  not  according  to  the  form  of  polity  which 
existed  in  the  days  of  either  Prosper  or  Bede,  but  ac- 
cording, as  they  express  it,  "to  the  custom  of  the  pri- 
mitive Church."t 

As  the  Church  of  Scotland  during  that  long  period 
had  no  diocesan  bishops,  and  therefore,  upon  your 

*  "Anno  Domini  429,  Sanctum  Palladium  Caclestinus  Papa  epis- 
copum  consecrat  et  ad  Scotiam  mittit.  Nam  per  sacerdotes  et  mona- 
chos  sine  Episcopis  Scoti  in  fide  erudiebantur."  Hist.  Maj.  Britan- 
niae,  lib.  ii.  cap.  2,  fol.  23. 

t  Some  have  questioned  whether  Palladius  ever  visited  Scotland. 
Dr.  Jamieson  shows  that  he  laboured  for  a  time  in  that  country. 
'  Fordun,"  says  he,  p.  9,  "  confining  the  mission  of  Palladius  to  the 
Scots  in  Britain,  says  that  Eugenius  gave  him  and  his  companions  a 
place  of  residence  where  he  asked  it.  In  the  MS.  of  Coupar,  there 
is  this  addition  :  Apud  Fordun,  in  lie  Mearns,  i.  e.  at  Fordun,  in  the 
Mearns.  This  perfectly  coincides  with  the  modern  account."  This 
parish  (Fordun)  is  remarkable  for  having  been  for  some  time  the  re- 
sidence, and  probably  the  burial  place  of  St.  Palladius,  who  was  sent 
by  Pope  Celestine  into  Scotland,  in  the  fifth  century,  to  oppose  the 
Pelagian  heresy.  That  Palladius  resided,  and  was  probably  buried 
lit  re,  appears  from  several  circumstances.  There  is  a  house  which 
still  remains  in  the  church-yard,  called  St.  Palladius'  cha/iel,  where, 
it  is  said,  the  image  of  the  saint  was  kept,  and  to  which  pilgrimages 
were  performed  from  the  most  distant  parts  of  Scotland.  There  is  a 
well  at  the  corner  of  the  minister's  garden,  which  goes  by  the  name 
of  Paddy's  well." 

"To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  the  annual  market  held  at  Fordun, 
is  still  universally,  in  that  part  of  the  country,  called  Paldy,  or,  as 
vulgarly  pronounced,  Paddy  fair.  'Phis  is  a  strong  presumption  that 
a  church  had  been  dedicated  to  him  there  :  as  it  is  a  well  known  fact, 
that  at  the  Reformation,  when  the  saints'  days  were  abolished,  the 
fairs,  which  used  to  succeed  the  festivals,  and  were  denominated  from 
them,  were  retained.  Hence,  their  very  name  from  Lat.  Feriae,  holi- 
days. Camerarius  asserts,  on  the  authority  of  Polydore  Virgil,  that 
the  precious  reliques  of  this  saint  were  formerly  worshipped  at  For- 
doun,"  &c. 

"According  to  Sigibert,  Palladius  was  sent  to  the  Scots,  A.  432. 
It  would  appear,  that  finding  his  labours  unsuccessful  in  Ireland,  he 
had  attempted  the  conversion  of  the  Picts,  for  Fordun  was  in  their 
territory." 


230 


LETTERS  ON 


principles,  could  not  be  a  Church,  so  it  is  impossible 
to  see  how  she  could  attain  that  character,  even  after 
the  arrival  of  Palladius  ;  for  as  the  individuals  whom 
he  ordaiued  had  been  baptized  only  by  presbyters, 
and  consequently  were  not  Christians,  nothing  which 
he  did  could  make  them  Christian  ministers.  And 
this  Avas  especially  the  case  in  l'egard  to  those  of  them 
whom  lie  raised  to  the  episcopate ;  for  as  he  had  not 
a  single  bishop  along  with  him,  it  was  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  whole  of  the  canons,  that  he  himself  alone 
should  consecrate  bishops.  And  in  addition  to  these 
facts,  which  show  that  the  boasted  apostolical  succes- 
sion, so  far  from  being  preserved,  was  not  even  begun 
by  Palladius,  so,  though  it  might  be  introduced  after- 
wards, (of  which  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence,) 
we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  if  it  was  actually  be- 
gun, it  was  speedily  destroyed  after  the  Culdees  arose, 
and  during  the  whole  of  the  time  that  they  governed 
the  Church.  The  founder  of  their  institutions  was 
the  celebrated  Columba,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Jamie- 
son,  was  of  the  blood  royal  of  Ireland,  and  who,  after 
he  became  pious,  devoted  himself  to  the  ministry,  and 
coming  over  to  Scotland  with  twelve  presbyters,  esta- 
blished a  monastery  in  Ii  or  Iona,  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing account  is  given  by  the  author  of  the  Scotichro- 
nicon,  under  the  year  560.  "Columba,  presbyter," 
says  he,  "came  to  the  Picts,  and  converted  them  to 
the  faith  of  Christ,  those,  I  say,  who  live  near  the 
northern  moors  ;  and  their  king  gave  them  that  island, 
which  is  commonly  called  Ii.  In  it,  as  it  is  reported, 
there  are  five  hides  (of  land,)  on  which  Columba 
erected  a  monastery ;  and  he  himself  resided  there 
as  Abbot,  thirty-two  years,  where  he  also  died,  when 
seventy  years  of  age.  This  place  is  still  held  by  his 
successors.  Thenceforth  there  ought  to  be  always  in 
Ii  an  abbot,  but  no  bishop,  and  lo  him  ought  all  the 
Scottish  bishops  to  be  subject,  for  this  reason,  that 
Columba  was  an  abbot,  not  a  bishop."* 

*  "  Doincops  perpetuum  in  Ii  Abbas  crit,  non  autem  Episcopus  ; 
atque  ei  debent  esse  subditi  oinnes  Scotorum  Episcopi,  proptcrea  quod 
Culumbanus  fuerit  Abbas,  non  Episcopus." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY, 


231 


This  monastery,  it  would  appear,  was  speedily"  fol- 
lowed by  the  erection  of  others,  which  as  Dr.  Jamie- 
son  observes,  "  may  more  properly  be  viewed  as 
colleges,  in  which  the  various  branches  of  useful 
learning  were  taught,  than  as  monasteries.  These 
societies,  therefore,  were  in  fact  the  seminaries  of  the 
Church,  both  in  North  Britain  and  in  Ireland.  As 
the  presbyters  ministered  in  holy  things  to  those  in 
their  vicinity,  they  were  still  training  up  others,  and 
sending  forth  missionaries,  whenever  they  had  a  call, 
or  any  prospect  of  success."*  Nor  was  the  number 
of  them  small;  for  they  had  similar  institutions,  each 
of  them  like  that  of  Iona,  (to  which  they  all  professed 
subjection,)  with  an  abbot,  and  twelve  presbyters, 
at  Abernethy,  Lochleven,  Dunkeld,  St.  Andrews, 
Brechin,  Dumblane,  Muthil,  Mortlach,  Monymusk, 
Dunfermline,  Melrose,  Govan,  Abercorn,  Inchcolm, 
Tyningham,  and  Aberlady.t  And  whether  you  con- 
sider the  religious  principles  taught  by  Columba  and 
these  presbyters,  or  the  authority  exercised  by  them 
over  the  Scottish  clergy  of  every  order,  the  facts 
related  respecting  them  are  deeply  interesting.  "  The 
doctrine  of  the  Culdees,  as  far  as  we  may  judge  from 
that  of  Columba,  was  at  least  comparatively  pure. 
As  he  was  himself  much  given  to  the  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,"  like  Luther,  "he  taught  his  disci- 
ples to  confirm  their  doctrines  by  testimonies  brought 
from  this  unpolluted  fountain;  and  declared  that  only 
to  be  the  divine  counsel  which  he  found  there.  His  fol- 
lowers, as  we  learn  from  Bede,  would  receive  those 
things  only,  which  are  contained  in  the  writings  of 
the  prophets,  evangelists,  and  apostles.J  Hence,  it 
has  been  said  that  for  several  generations — with  the 
errors  which  at  that  time  prevailed  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  they  seem  not  to  have  been  in  the  least 
tainted.  § 

•Page  35.  t  Ibid.  105-187. 

t  "  Tantum  ea  quae  in  Propheticis,  Evangelicis  et  Apostolicis 
Libris  discere  potcrant  pictatis  et  custitatis  opera  diligenter  obser- 
vanles."  Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  4. 

§  Jamicson,  p.  29,  30. 


232 


LETTERS  ON 


"  They  rejected,"  says  Toland,  "auricular  confes- 
sion," which  some  oi'  your  followers  so  earnestly 
recommend,  ''as  well  as  authoritative  absolution  ; 
and  confessed  to  God  alone,  as  believing  God  alone 
could  forgive  sins."*  They  never  practised  confir- 
mation, which,  though  it  was  never  performed  after 
baptism  on  the  Saviour  or  his  Apostles,  or  any  of 
their  disciples  who  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  practised  by  Episcopalians,  who  glory  in 
their  Churches  as  the  purest  Apostolic  Churches.t 
"  In  their  public  worship,  they  made  an  honourable 
mention  of  holy  persons  deceased,  offering  a  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving  for  their  exemplary  life  and  death, 
but  not  by  way  of  propitiation  for  sins.  They  neither 
prayed  to  dead  men,  nor  for  them,"  as  the  late  Bishop 
Gleig  recommended;  for  they  were  persuaded,  that 
while  we  are  in  the  present  world,  we  may  help  one 
another,  either  by  our  prayers  or  by  our  counsels; 
but  when  we  come  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ, 
neither  Job,  nor  Daniel,  nor  Noah,  can  intercede  for 
any  one,  but  every  one  must  bear  his  own  burden. "J 
"  And  they  were  so  far,"  says  the  same  writer,  "from 
pretending  to  do  more  good  than  they  were  obliged 
(to  do,)  much  less  to  superabound  in  merit  for  the 
benefit  of  others,  that  they  readily  denied  all  merit  of 
their  own,  and  solely  hoped  for  salvation  from  the 
mercy  of  God,  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ:  which 
faith,  as  a  living  root,  was  to  produce  the  fruit  of  good 
works,  without  which  it  were  barren  or  dead,  and 
consequently  useless."§  "  They  paid  no  respect  to 
holy  reliques,  or  to  the  mass;  but"  when  they  were 
persecuted  for  it  at  St.  Andrews,  "chose  rather  to 
forsake  their  church  and  property  than  desert  their 
principles." ||  And  when  Boniface  was  sent  from 
Rome  to  propagate  the  principles  of  his  apostate 
Church,  he  encountered  a  noble  and  magnanimous 
opposition  from  Clemens  and  Samson,  two  illustrious 


*  Nazaren.,  Letter  2,  p.  24. 
t  Ibid.  p.  22. 
t  Nazaren.,  p.  26. 


§  Ibid.  p.  25,  26. 
||  Jaiuieson,  p.  214. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


233 


Culdees,  who  told  him,  "  that  he  and  those  of  his 
party  studied  to  bring  men  to  the  subjection  of  the 
Pope,  and  slavery  of  Rome,  withdrawing  them  from 
obedience  to  Christ, — that  they  were  corrupters  of 
Christ's  doctrine,  establishing  a  sovereignty  in  the 
Bishop  of  Rome, — and  that  they  had  introduced  in 
the  Church  many  tenets,  rites  and  ceremonies,  un- 
known to  the  ancient  and  pure  times,  yea,  contrary 
to  them."*    In  short,  their  doctrine  and  worship,  in 

*  David  Buchanan's  Preface  to  Knox's  History. 

The  following  is  the  account  given  by  Bower,  in  his  History  of  the 
Popes,  vol.  ii.  p.  523,  of  the  way  in  which  Pope  Gregory  ordered  the 
missionaries,  whom  he  sent  from  Rome,  to  model  the  worship  of  the 
East  Saxons.  "  Not  satisfied,"  says  he,  "  with  directing  Austin  not 
to  destroy,  but  to  rescue  for  the  worship  of  God  the  profane  places 
wheic  the  Pagan  Suxons  had  worshipped  their  idols,  he  would  have 
him  to  treat  the  more  profane  usages,  riles  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Pagans  in  the  same  manner,  that  is,  not  to  abolish  but  to  sanctify 
them,  by  changing  the  end  for  which  they  were  instituted,  and  intro- 
duce them  thus  sanctified  into  the  Christian  worship.  This  he  speci- 
fics in  a  particular  ceremony  ;  "  whereas  it  is  a  custom,"  says  he, 
"  among  the  Saxons,  to  slay  abundance  of  oxen,  and  sacrifice  them  to 
the  devil,  you  must  nut  aholish  that  custom,  but  appoint  a  new  festival 
to  be  kept  either  on  the  day  of  the  consecration  of  the  churches,  or  on 
the  birth-day  of  the  saints  whose  reliques  are  deposited  there  ;  and  on 
these  days  the  Saxons  may  be  allowed  to  make  arbours  round  the 
temples  changed  into  churches,  to  kill  their  oxen  and  to  feast,  as  they 
did  while  they  were  still  Pagans;  only  they  shall  offer  their  thanks 
and  praises,  not  to  the  devil,  but  to  God."  Such  was  the  principle 
on  which  many  of  the  Pagan  ceremonies  were  adopted  by  the  Church 
of  Rome;  and  it  was  for  this  reason,  more  than  from  the  difference 
of  the  time  at  which  Easter  was  observed  by  them,  that  the  bishops 
or  presbyters  sent  to  England  by  the  Culdees  refused  to  conform  to 
the  practices  of  the  Popish  clergy  among  the  East  Saxons. 

"Boniface  the  Fourth,"  says  Bower,  vol.  iii.  p.  1,  2,  "  availing 
himself  of  the  partiality  of  Phocas  to  his  See,  asked  of  him  the  famous 
Pantheon,  (built  by  Agrippa  in  honour  of  Cybele  and  all  the  other 
gods  and  goddesses,  and  thence  it  took  its  name,)  and  having  obtained 
it  he  changed  it  into  a  church,  substituting  the  mother  of  God  to  the 
mother  of  the  gods,  and  the  Christian  martyrs  to  the  other  Pagan 
deities  adored  there  before;  so  that  only  the  names  of  the  idols  were 
altered."  This  took  place  in  a.  d.  60!).  And  says  Ranke,  in  his 
History  of  the  Popes,  vol.  i.  p.  D,  "  Men  saw  with  surprise  a  secular 
building  erected  by  heathens,  the  Basilica,  converted  into  a  Christian 
temple.  The  change  was  most  remarkable.  The  Apsis  of  the  Basilica 
contained  an  Augusteum,  the  images  of  those  Caesars  to  whom  divine 
honours  were  paid.  The  very  places  which  they  occupied,  received, 
as  we  still  see  in  numerous  Basilicas,  the  figures  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles.    The  statues  of  the  rulers  of  the  world,  who  had  been 


234 


LETTERS  ON 


an  age  of  abounding  superstition  and  corruption,  were 
worthy  of  the  purest  days  of  Protestantism ;  and  if  I 
were  requested  to  name  the  section  of  the  Church 
which  resembled  most  nearly  the  Church  of  the  Apos- 
tles during  the  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  centuries,  I  t. 
would  say,  that  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Vau- 
dois,  it  was  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

If  such,  however,  was  the  case,  it  must  be  import- 
ant to  ascertain  what  was  the  constitution  of  that 
early  Church,  and  what  were  the  powers  which  were 
exercised  by  the  highest  order  of  its  ministers.  Now, 
there  is  no  fact  respecting  it  more  fully  established 
than  that  it  was  governed  by  Presbyters.  You  meet, 
indeed,  occasionally,  with  a  reference  in  our  histo- 
rians to  the  Scottish  bishops  of  that  age,  but  the  term 
seems  to  have  been  convertible  with  that  of  presby- 
ter, the  highest  dignity  of  the  episcopal  office,  as  Ja- 
mieson  remarks  of  a  bishop  whom  the  presbyters  of 
Iona  first  consecrated  and  then  sent  to  England, 
"  being  made  to  lie  in  this  that  he  was  a  preacher.*" 
After  observing  that  the  term  bishop  was  used  then 
in  a  very  different  sense  from  that  attached  to  it  after- 
wards, he  adds,  "  Ninian  is  called  a  bishop  by  Bede. 
and  he  probably  received  the  title  during  his  life. 
He  says,  that  the  Southern  Picts  were  converted  by 
the  preaching  of  Ninyas,  as  he  gives  his  name,  the 
most  renowned  bishop.    Ninian  receives  the  same 

regarded  as  gods,  vanished,  and  gave  place  to  the  likeness  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  the  Son  of  God." 

"  The  feast  of  the  purification  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  says  Bower, 
vol.  ii.  p.  227,  "  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Candlcmass,  because 
candles  were  blessed,  as  is  still  practised  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  at 
the  mass  of  that  day,  is  thought  by  some  to  have  been  introduced  in 
the  room  of  the  Lupercalia,  (the  feast  of  Pan.)"  He  adds  in  a  note, 
"The  candles  that  are  blessed  on  Candlemuss-day  are  thought  to  be 
a  sure  protection  against  thunder  and  lightning,  and  therefore  are 
lighted  by  timorous  persons  in  stormy  weather.  But  their  chief  vir- 
tue is  to  frighten  the  devils  and  drive  them  away ;  and  for  this  reason 
they  are  kept  burning  in  the  hands  of  dying  persons,  so  long  as  they 
can  hold  them,  and  by  their  beds,  from  the  time  they  begin  to  be  in 
agony,  till  they  expire,  none  of  the  spirits  of  darkness  daring  to  appear 
where  they  give  light."  Many  other  Pagan  ceremonies  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 

*  Page  "333. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


235 


designation  from  Alcuin,  Boece,  Leslie,  and  a  variety 
of  writers.  Yet  he  seems  to  have  heen  no  more  a 
bishop  than  Colnmba.  Nor  could  Bede  use  the  term 
in  that  canonical  sense  which  was  become  common 
in  his  own  time  ;  for  he  afterwards  says, '  Pethelm  is 
Bishop  of  Candida  Casa,  or  Whithern,  which,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  increase  of  the  number  of  the  faithful, 
has  been  lately  added  to  the  list  of  episcopal  sees,  and 
had  him  for  its  first  prelate.'*  In  the  MS.  History 
of  Durham,  under  the  year  664,  and  long  after  the 
age  of  Ninian,  it  is  expressly  said,  Candida  Casa  as 
yet  had  no  bishop.  William  of  Malmesbury,  also,  in 
his  account  of  the  bishops  of  this  see,  although,  after 
Alcuin,  he  calls  Ninian  a  bishop,  using  the  term  in  its 
loose  and  general  sense,  says,  that  toward  the  end  of 
Bede's  life,  Pethelm  was  made  the  first  bishop,  that 
is,  as  Selden  explains  it,  according  to  the  canonical 
ideas  of  Episcopacy  then  generally  received  through- 
out Christendom." 

He  further  remarks,  "  The  character  of  the  Irish 
bishops,  in  early  times,  may  assist  us  in  judging  of 
the  rank  of  those  who  were  ordained  at  Iona ;  espe- 
cially as  Columba,  who  was  not  a  bishop,  but  an 
abbot  and  presbyter,  is  designed  not  only  Primate  of 
the  Scots  and  Picts,  but  Primate  of  all  the  Irish 
bishops.t  Till  the  year  1 152,  they  seem  to  have  been 
properly  Chorepiscopi,  or  rural  bishops.  Their  num- 
ber, it  is  supposed,  might  amount  to  above  three 
hundred.  They,  in  the  same  manner  with  the  Scot- 
tish and  Pictish  bishops,  exercised  their  functions  at 
large,  as  they  had  opportunity.:]:"  "  That  bishop  in 
Ireland,"  says  Toland,  "  did,  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  cen- 
turies, (for  example,)  signify  a  distinct  order  of  men, 
by  whom  alone  presbyters  could  be  ordained,  and 
without  which  ordination  their  ministry  were  invalid  ; 
this  I  absolutely  deny ;  as  I  do  that  those  bishops 
were  diocesan  bishops,  when  nothing  is  plainer,  than 

*  "  And  he  was  thaere  stowe  the  aereste  biscop."    Hist.  Alfred's 
Translation,  vol.  xxiv. 
t  "Omnium  Hibcrncnsium  Episcoporuin  Frimas." 
t  Jamieson,  p.  335. 


236 


LETTERS  OX 


that  most  of  them  had  no  bishopricks  at  all  in  our 
modern  sense ;  not  to  speak  of  those  numerous  bi- 
shops frequently  going  out  of  Ireland,  not  called  to 
bishopricks  abroad,  and  many  of  'em  never  pre- 
ferred there.*'''' 

It  was  mentioned  formerly,  that  the  College  oflona 
was  administered  by  an  abbot  and  twelve  presby- 
ters: and  it  would  appear  from  what  is  said  of  it  by 
the  venerable  Bede,  that  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of 
the  kingdom  of  Scotland  was  at  that  time  Presbyte- 
rian. "That  island,"  says  he,  "is  always  wont  to 
have  for  its  governor  a  presbyter  abbot,  to  whose 
authority  both  the  whole  province,  and  even  the 
bishops  themselves,  by  an  unusual  const  it  ution,  ought 

*  Nazarenus,  Lett.  2,  p.  37,  38. 

Jamieson  mentions  also,  that  "the  abbots  of  Hij,  because  of  their 
great  authority  and  extensive  influence,  were  sometimes  called 
bishops.  For  this  reason,  in  relation  to  that  monastery,  the  terms 
Abbas  and  Episcopus  seem  to  have  been  used  as  synonymous. 
Hence,  Sigibert  speaks  of  Adamannus,  the  Presbyter  and  Abbot  of 
the  Scots.  As  the  prelacy  gained  ground,  the  rage  for  multiplying 
bishops,  in  preceding  ages,  also  increased.  On  this  principle,  as 
would  seem,  Spottiswood  includes  both  Columba  and  Adomnan,  in 
his  list  of  the  early  bishops  of  Scotland,  appended  to  his  history. 
According  to  Fordun,  Regulus  was  only  an  abbot.  The  Register  of 
St.  Andrews,  however,  makes  him  a  bishop;"  p.  336,  337. 

"  There  seem  to  have  been  no  regular  dioceses  in  Scotland  before 
the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  foundation  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy  was  indeed  laid  in  the  erection  of  the  bishopric  of  St. 
Andrews.  In  this  erection,  we  may  perceive  the  traces  of  a  plan  for 
changing  the  whole  form  of  the  ecclesiastical  government,  as  it  had 
hitherto  been  exercised  within  the  Pictish  dominions."  "  He  first," 
says  the  Register  of  the  Priory  at  St.  Andrews,  speaking  of  Grig, 
"gave  freedom  to  the  Scottish  Church,  which  till  that  time  was  in 
servitude  by  the  constitution  and  custom  of  the  Picts.  This  surely 
refers,  says  Mr.  Pinkcrton,  to  the  subjection  of  the  Pictish  churches 
to  Hyona,  from  which  they  were  delivered  by  erecting  St.  Andrews 
into  a  bishopric  ;"  p.  338. 

It  will  by  no  means  follow,  as  Keith  alleges,  (Catalogue,  Preface, 
18,)  that  the  English  would  not  have  applied  on  different  occasions  to 
the  Culdees  for  bishops,  if  the  bishops  ordained  by  the  latter  were 
not  diocesan,  and  differed  essentially  from  their  own.  The  English 
were  in  want  of  preachers,  and  would  not  for  a  time  attach  the  same 
importance  to  a  difference  in  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government. 
And  he  might  as  well  have  alleged  that  they  would  not  have  applied 
to  them,  because,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
with  which  they  were  connected,  the  Scots  were  schismatical  in  their 
mode  of  observing  Easter. 


PtJSEVITE  EPISCOPACY. 


237 


to  be  subject,  after  tbe  example  of  tbeir  first  teacber, 
who  was  not  a  bishop,  but  a  presbyter  and  monk."* 
That  subjection  was  cheerfully  yielded  to  Columba, 
the  first  abbot,  and,  as  would  seem  from  the  language 
ascribed  to  Colman,  when  he  was  ordained  by  the 
President  and  the  rest  of  the  College,  it  was  given  at 
the  same  time  to  the  whole  of  the  presbyters.  And 
it  was  enjoined  to  be  rendered  to  all  tbeir  successors, 
not  merely  by  one  bishop,  as  is  insinuated  by  Lloyd, 
to  evade  the  argument  which  it  furnishes  against 
Episcopacy,  but  by  the  whole  of  the  bishops  in  every 
part  of  Scotland,  and  not  only  in  one  diocese,  as  he 
would  explain  the  word  "  province,"  for  there  were 
no  dioceses  in  that  country  for  nearly  six  centuries 
after  the  time  of  Columba,  but  as  Gillan  interprets, 
"the  northern  province  of  the  Scots,"  of  which  Bede 
speaks  in  his  third  chapter,  "the  north  of  Ireland,  the 
Western  Scottish  islands,  and  those  parts  of  Britain 
that  were  inhabited  by  the  Scots."t  He  denominates 
this  constitution,  "  an  unusual  constitution,"  and  he 
might  justly  so  describe  it;  for  while  the  Church  of 
England,  and  almost  every  other  Church  with  which 
he  was  acquainted,  was  subject  to  the  authoriiy  of 
diocesan  prelates,  the  whole  of  the  simple  scriptural 
bishops  in  the  country  of  Scotland,  who  had  no  dio- 
ceses, were  required  to  be  subject  to  the  Abbot  of  Iona, 
who  was  not  a  prelate,  but  only  a  presbyter,  and  to 
his  fellow  presbyters,  whose  original  predecessors 
founded  the  parent  college  of  the  kingdom,  where  its 
future  clergy  were  to  be  educated  and  ordained. 

The  power  of  these  presbyters  over  the  clergy  of 
Scotland  is  further  confirmed  by  what  is  said  by  Tur- 
got,  Prior  of  Durham,  in  his  history  of  that  See.  "  In 
these  days,"  (a.  d.  1 108,)  says  he,  "all  the  right  (totum 
jus)  of  the  Culdees,  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of 
Scotland,  passed  into  the  Bishopric  of  St.  Andrews." 

*  "  Habere  autem  solct  ipsa  insula  rcctorem  semper  abbatcm  pres- 
byterum  cujus  juri  omnis  provincia,  et  ipsi  etiam  Episcopi  orclinc 
inusitato,  debeant  esse  subject!,  juxta  exemplum  prirni  doctoris  illius 
qui  non  episcopus,  sed  presbyter  extitit,  ct  monaclius."  Hist.  lib. 
iii.  c.  4. 

t  Remarks,  p.  57-79. 


23S 


LETTERS  oy 


"The  learned  Selden,"  says  Jamieson,  " seems  justly 
to  view  the  term  jus,  as  denoting  the  right,  which  they 
had  long  claimed  and  exercised,  of  electing  and  or- 
daining bishops,  without  the  interference  of  any  others 
in  order  to  their  consecration.  Had  the  writer  meant 
to  speak  of  their  temporal  rights,  or  even  of  the  privi- 
leges attached  to  particular  priories,  he  would  most 
probably  have  used  a  different  term.  At  any  rate, 
had  these  been  in  his  eye,  he  would  have  spoken  of 
rights  in  the  plural,  as  referring  to  the  whole  extent  of 
their  property.  But  when  he  speaks  of  '  the  right  of 
the  Culdees  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of  Scot- 
land,' it  is  evident,  that  he  must  refer  to  one  distin- 
guishing privilege,  belonging  to  them  as  a  body,  by 
virtue  of  which  their  jurisdiction  had  no  limit,  save 
that  of  the  kingdom  itself.  And  what  could  this  be, 
but  the  right  of  choosing,  without  any  conge  d'elire 
from  the  Sovereign,  and  of  ordaining,  without  any 
consecration  from  a  superior  order  of  clergy,  those 
who  were  called  bishops  in  a  general  sense,  or  Bish- 
ops of  Scot/and.  as  exercising  their  authority  some- 
what in  the  same  unlimited  way  in  which  the  Cul- 
dees exercised  theirs?"* 

*  "  The  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  conjectures,"  says  he,  "that  it  might 
be  the  right  of  confirming  the  elections  of  all  the  bishops  in  Scotland. 
This  had  been  done  by  them,  (the  Culdees,")  he  says,  "as  being  the 
primate's  dean  and  chapter,  but  was  now  taken  from  them,  and  per- 
formed by  the  primate  himself.*'  Here  the  learned  prelate  finds  him- 
self under  the  necessity  of  conceding  to  I  he  Culdees  a  very  extraordi- 
nary power.  But  this  power  must  originally  have  centered  in  the 
Monastery  of  Iona.  This  monastery,  then,  must  have  been  to  all 
intents  the  primacy  of  Scotland,  of  the  country  at  least  which  has 
now  received  this  name.  This  power  must  have  belonged  to  the 
college,  as  the  chapter,  if  it  must  be  so.  But  who  was  the  primate  ? 
!Xo  bishop,  from  all  that  we  have  seen,  but  the  abbot  himself.  Thus 
the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  finds  it  necessary  to  admit,  however  reluc- 
tantly, what  he  elsewhere  tries  to  set  aside,  the  testimony  of  Bede, 
With  respect  to  the  subjection  of  "  all  the  province,  and  even  of  the 
bishops  themselves,  in  au  unusual  manner  to  this  abbot.  Even  after 
he  has  made  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  show,  that  the  province  refer- 
ed  to  by  the  ancient  writer  could  signify  only  a  single  diocese,  he  in- 
advertently gives  up  the  point  in  controversy,  making  all  the  bishops 
in  Scotland  to  be  at  least  so  far  subject  to  the  Culdees,  that  they  had 
the  right  of  confirming  their  elections  ;"  p.  341,  342. 

Lloyd  says,  (Historical  Account,  p.  102,)  "it  appears  there  was 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


239 


But  what  places  the  matter  beyond  all  dispute  is 
the  testimony  of  Bede  in  another  part  of  his  history, 
where,  after  speaking  of  the  settlement  of  Aidan  in 
England,  who  had  been  sent  thither  by  these  presby- 
ters, and  of  his  being  followed  by  a  number  of  his 
countrymen,  who  preached  the  word  with  great  zeal, 
and  administered  baptism,  he  mentions  that  churches 
were  erected,  and  lands  appropriated  for  establishing 
monasteries;  "for,"  he  says,  "they  were  chiefly 
monks  who  came  to  preach.  Bishop  Aidan  himself 
was  a  monk,  forasmuch  as  he  was  sent  from  the  island 

always  one  (bishop)  in  his  (Colnmba's)  monastery,  as  Bishop  Usher 
tells  us  out  of  the  Ulster  Annals,  Prim.  p.  701.  Usher's  own  words 
in  the  passage  referred  to  are,  'The  Ulster  Annals  teach  us,  that 
even  that  small  island  had  not  only  an  abbot,  but  also  a  bishop.' 
This  is  somewhat  different  from  their  being  always  one  in  his  (Col- 
umba's)  monastery.  Usher,  how  ever,  does  not  quote  the  words  of  the 
Annals,  but  immediately  subjoins  in  the  same  sentence, — '  From  which 
(Annals)  it  may  perhaps  be  worth  while  to  learn  the  first  series  of 
abbots.  He  then  adds  a  list  of  ten  in  succession,  giving  various  no- 
tices concerning  some  of  them.  Would  it  not  have  been  fully  as  na- 
tural to  have  given  a  list  of  the  pretended  bishops  if  he  could  have 
done  it But,  although  superior  to  abbot-presbyters,  it  is  not  a  little 
singular,  that  antiquity  has  thrown  a  veil  over  their  names." 

"  Besides  the  ten  abbots  of  Ilii  mentioned  by  Usher,  there  were, 
according  to  the  extracts  from  these  Annals,  appended  by  Mr.  Pin- 
kerton  to  his  Enquiry,  during  the  lapse  of  about  three  centuries,  other 
nine  who  are  expressly  designed  abbots,  ten  called  co-arb«,  and  one 
denominated  'Heir  of Columbeille.'  Johnstone,  in  his  Extracts  from 
the  same  Annals,  gives  the  names  of  two  abbots  not  appearing  in  Mr. 
Pinkerton's.  But  not  another  besides  Coide  is  mentioned  as  bishop ;" 
p.  48,  50. 

"  In  Colgan's  List,  as  given  from  Innes's  MS.  Collections,  we  find 
twenty-six  successors  of  Columba,  in  the  course  of  two  hundred  and 
sixty-three  years,  and  besides  Ceudei,  who  is  evidently  the  same  with 
Coide,  only  one  of  these  abbots  has  the  title  of  bishop.  This  is  Fer- 
ganan,  surnamed  the  Briton,  the  third  in  this  list,  the  same  person 
with  Fergnaus,  who  also  holds  the  third  place  in  Usher's.  But  Usher 
takes  no  notice  of  his  being  a  bishop,  and  Smith,  who,  in  his  Chron- 
icle, calls  him  Fergna,  gives  him  no  other  designation  than  that  of 
abbot.  His  name  does  not  appear  in  the  Extracts  from  the  Annals 
of  Ulster.  Smith  also  mentions  Coide  under  the  name  of  St.  Caide  or 
Caidan,  but  merely  as  Abbot  of  Hij." 

"To  the  article  respecting  Coide,  Johnstone  affixes  the  following 
note  :  '  The  Abbots  of  Iona,  Derry  and  Dunkeld,  are  frequently  styled 
bishops.'  This  remark  seems  to  be  well  founded,  from  what  follows 
in  the  Annals,  a.  723.  Faolan  McDorbene,  Abbot  of  Iona,  was  suc- 
ceeded in  the  primacy  by  Killin-fada ;"  p.  51. 


240 


LETTERS  ON" 


which  is  called  Hii,  the  monastery  of  which  for  a 
long  time  held  the  supremacy  among  almost  all  the 
monasteries  of  the  Northern  Scots,  and  those  of  all  the 
Picts,  and  presided  in  the  government  of  their  peo- 
ple f*  or,  according  to  King  Alfred's  Anglo-Saxon 
Version,  "it  received  the  principality  and  exaltation." 
Here,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  it  is  not  only  the 
ahbot,  but  the  abbot  along  with  his  presbyters,  or  the 

*  "  Monachus  ipse  Episcopus  Aidan,  utpote  <le  insula,  quae  vocatur 
Hii,  destinatus:  cujus  monasteriuoi  in  cunctis  pene  Septentrionalium 
Scottorum,  et  omnium  Piotcrum  monasteriis  non  parvo  tempore 
arcem  tenebat,  regendisquc  eorum  populis  praeerat."  Hist.  lib.  iii. 
cap.  3. 

"  It  has  been  urged,"  says  Jamieson,  p.  71,  "  that  we  can  conclude 
nothing  from  this  unusual  authority  against  the  establishment  of  Epis- 
copacy in  Scotland,  because  the  government  of  Oxford  is  vested  in 
the  University,  exclusively  of  the  bishop  who  resides  there.  (Lloyd's 
Histor.  Account,  p.  160,  161.)  But  the  cases  are  by  no  means  paral- 
lel; for,  1.  The  government  of  the  whole  province  was  vested  in  the 
abbot  and  college  of  monks.  It  has  been  said,  indeed,  that  the  Kings 
of  England  might  have  extended  the  power  of  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford through  the  whole  diocese,  had  they  pleased,  and  that  it  would 
not  have  been  a  suppressing  of  the  order  of  bishops.  But,  not  to  say 
that  such  a  co-ordinate  power  would  have  been  extremely  galling  to 
the  episcopate,  it  has  been  proved,  that  the  power  of  the  monastery 
extended  far  beyond  the  limits  which  Bishop  Lloyd  has  assigned  to 
the  pretended  diocese  of  Hii.  2.  The  power  itself  is  totally  different. 
Although  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  be  subject  to  the  University  in  civil 
matters,  as  well  as  the  other  inhabitants  of  that  city,  what  estimate 
would  he  form  of  the  pretensions  of  that  learned  body,  were  they  to 
claim  a  right  of  precedence  regendis  pnpulis,  in  governing  all  the 
people  of  his  diocese;  and  as  a  proof  of  the  nature  of  the  government, 
the  same  which  Bede  gives,  of  sending  forth  missionaries  to  teach,  to 
baptize,  and  to  plant  churches  ?  (Hist.,  lib.  iii.  c.  3.)  The  Bishop,  I 
apprehend,  would  rather  be  disposed  to  view  tins  as  a  virtual  suppres- 
sing of  the  order." 

The  supposition  has  been  otherwise  stated  with  respect  to  an  uni- 
versity. It  has  been  said,  (Life  of  Sage,  p.  52,)  "  When  a  bishop  is 
head  of  a  college  in  any  of  the  universities,  (which  has  frequently 
happened,)  he  must  be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  vice-chancel- 
lor, though  only  a  priest,  and  perhaps  one  of  his  own  clergy.  In 
replv,  it  has  been  properly  inquired,  were  the  bishops  of  Lindisfairn 
no  otherwise  subject  to  the  Monastery  of  Icolmkill,  than  the  head  of 
a  college  in  any  of  the  universities,  becoming  afterwards  a  bishop, 
must  be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  vice-chancellor,  who  may  be 
a  priest  in  his  own  diocese?  The  cases  must  indeed  be  viewed  as 
totally  dissimilar;  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  head  of  a  college 
may  be  sent,  ordained,  and  consecrated  to  be  a  bishop  of  any  diocese 
in  England,  and  yet  continue  subject  to  the  university  from  which  he 
was  sent." 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


241 


monastery,  that  is  represented  as  invested  with  this 
supremacy  over  the  other  monasteries,  and  as  presid- 
ing in  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  people,  both 
of  the  Scots  and  Picts.  And  accordingly,  the  passage 
is  thus  translated  by  Stapleton :  "  The  house  of  religion 
was  no  small  time  the  head  house  of  all  the  monas- 
teries of  the  Northern  Scottes,  and  of  abbyes  of  all  the 
Redshankes,  (the  term  by  which  he  renders  Pictorum,) 
and  had  the  soveraintie  in  ruling  of  their  people."* 
And  we  have  positive  evidence  of  their  ordaining 
bishops,  and  sending  them  to  England;  and  if  they 
exercised  that  power  in  regard  to  ministers  who  were 
to  labour  in  that  country,  it  furnishes  evidence  which 
is  fitted  to  satisfy  any  unprejudiced  mind,  that  they 
must  have  exercised  the  same  power  in  regard  to 
those  ministers  who  were  to  officiate  in  their  own 
country.  Bede  informs  us  that  Oswald,  an  English 
Prince,  "sent  to  the  elders  of  the  Scots  amongst  whom 
he  had  been  baptized,  that  they  might  send  him  a 
bishop,  by  whose  doctrine  and  ministry  the  nation  of 
Angles  which  he  governed  might  be  instructed  in  the 
Christian  faith,  and  receive  the  sacraments."t  The 
presbyters  oflona  accordingly  sent  him  Cormac,  whom 
they  ordained  to  that  office ;  but  as  his  manners  were 
too  austere,  he  failed  in  conciliating  the  affections  of 
the  people,  and  was  soon  obliged  to  return.  Upon  his 
arrival  at  the  monastery,  the  presbyters  met  to  receive 
his  report;  and  as  the  passage  which  relates  to  it  has 
been  considerably  perverted  by  modern  Episcopalians, 
'and  has  been  inaccurately  rendered  in  the  version  of 
1723,  I  shall  give  it  in  the  old  version  of  Stapleton, 
who,  though  a  zealous  Papist  and  Episcopalian,  has 
translated  it  more  faithfully.  "  He  returned,"  says  he, 
"  into  his  countre,  and  in  the  assemble  of  the  elders,  he 

«  Bede,  Hist.  lib.  iii.  cap.  3. 

+  "  Idem  ergo  Oswald  mox  ubi  regnum  suscepit,  desiderans  totam 
cui  praeesse  coepit  gcntem  fidci  Christianae  gralia  imbui,  cujus  ex- 
pcrimenta  permaxirna  in  expugnandis  Barbaris  jam  cepcrat  misit  ad 
majores  natu  Scottorum  inter  quos  exulans  ipse  baptismatis  sacra- 
mcnta,  cum  his  qui  secum  militibus,  consecutus  erat,  petens  ut  sibi 
milterelur  antistes,"  &.c.    Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  3. 


16 


242 


LETTERS  ON 


made  relation,  how,  that  in  teaching,  he  could  do  the 
people  no  good  to  the  which  he  was  sent,  for  as  much 
as  they  were  folkes  that  might  not  be  reclaymed,  of  a 
hard  capacite,  and  fierce  nature.  Then  the  elders  (as 
they  say)  began  in  counsaile  to  treat  at  long  what 
were  best  to  be  done."*  While  they  were  deliberat- 
ing about  what  ought  to  be  done,  Aidan  (who,  for 
aught  that  appears,  was  previously  only  a  monk  and 
not  a  presbyter)  rose  and  addressed  them,  and  they 
were  so  struck  with  the  wisdom  which  he  displayed, 
and  which  they  had  not  anticipated,  that  they  resolved 
to  appoint  him  in  the  room  of  Cormac,  and  ordained 
him  and  sent  him  to  King  Oswald.  "Having  heard 
this,"  says  Bede,  "the  faces  and  the  eyes  of  all  who 
sat  there  were  turned  to  him ;  they  diligently  weighed 
what  he  had  said,  and  determined  that  he  was  worthy 
of  the  episcopal  office,  and  that  he  should  be  sent  to 
instruct  the  unbelieving  and  illiterate,  it  being  proved 
that  he  was  supereminently  endowed  with  the  gift  of 
discretion,  which  is  the  mother  of  virtues,  and  thus 
ordaining  him  they  sent  him  to  preach."t  The 

*  Redierit  patriam,  atque  in  convenlu  Seniorum  retulerit,  quia 
nil  prodesse  docendo  genti  ad  quam  missus  erat  potuisset,"  &.C.  Lib. 
iii.  c.  5. 

t  "  Quo  audito,  omnium  qui  consedebant  ad  ipsum  oraet  oculi  con- 
versi,  diligenter  quid  diceret  discutiebant,  et  ipsum  esse  dignum  epis- 
copatu,  ipsum  ad  erudiendos  incredulos  et  indoctos  mitti  decernunt; 
qui  gratia  discretionis,  quae  virtutum  mater  est,  ante  omnia  probatur 
imbutus;  sicque  ilium  ordinantes,  ad  praedicandum  miserunt."  Hist, 
lib.  iii.  c.  5. 

Gillan  says,  "What  can  be  the  meaning  of  his  being  thought  wor-- 
thy  of  the  office  of  a  bishop,  and  his  being  ordained  ?  Certainly  he 
was  a  presbyter  before  he  was  a  monk  of  Hii,  and  a  member  of  the 
synod,  and  spoke  and  reasoned,  and  made  a  great  figure  in  it."  (Life 
of  Sage.)  But  what  assurance  have  we  of  this?  says  Jamieson,  p.  66. 
"  Bishop  Lloyd  shows  that  many  monks  were  laymen.  Bede  himself 
admits  that  of  the  many  who  daily  came  from  the  country  of  the  Scots 
into  the  provinces  of  the  Angles  over  which  Oswald  reigned,  and 
entered  the  monasteries,  only  some  were  presbyters.  He  seems  to 
say,  that  they  all  preached,  or  acted  as  catechists ;  but  that  those  only 
baptized  who  had  received  the  sacerdotal  office.  Having  observed 
that  they  instructed  the  Angles  in  regular  discipline,  he  adds,  for 
they  were  for  the  most  part  monks  who  came  to  preach.  Bishop 
Aidan  himself  was  a  monk,  &c.  As  he  had  already  distinguished 
those  who  had  the  sacerdotal  office  from  such  as  were  merely  monks, 
there  is  great  reason  to  suppose  that  he  means  here  to  say,  that  Aidan 
had  been  a  mere  monk  before  his  ordination  as  bishop." 


PTTSEVITE  EPISCOPACV. 


243 


same  persons,  it  is  obvious,  ordained  and  sent  him 
who  had  ordained  and  sent  his  predecessor,  and  who 
were  met  to  receive  the  report  of  the  latter.  And 
these  were  not,  as  Bishop  Lloyd  supposes,  (for  he 
merely  mentions  it  as  a  supposition,)  the  diocesan 
bishop  of  Iona,  of  whose  existence  not  a  shadow  of 
proof  can  be  produced,  and  the  Bishop  of  Dumblane, 
and  some  other  bishop,  of  whose  presence  on  the  oc- 
casion, if  there  were  any  such  prelates,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  notice,  but  the  presbyters  of  Iona,  with 
their  president,  the  abbot-presbyter,  or  as  the  historian 
denominates  them,  the  seniors  of  the  Scots,  (Majores 
natu  Scottorum,)  and  the  assembly  of  the  seniors, 
(Conventus  Seniorum.)  And  though  Gillan  insinu- 
ates, without  producing  his  authority  for  it,  that  they 
were  diocesan  bishops,  yet  these  names,  Majores  Natu, 
and  Seniores,  are  never  applied  by  Bede  to  such 
ministers,  while  he  repeatedly  uses  them  to  denote 
the  senior  monks  in  monasteries,  who  were  commonly 
presbyters.  Stapleton  accordingly  translates  the  pas- 
sage in  such  a  way  as  shows  clearly  that  this  is  the 
only  just  interpretation,  for  he  gives  the  following 
version  of  it :  "  Al  that  were  at  the  assemble  looking 
upon  Aidan,  debated  diligently  his  saying,  and  con- 
cluded that  he  above  the  rest  was  worthy  of  that 
charge  and  bishopricke,  and  that  he  should  be  sent  to 
instruct  those  unlerned  Paynims.  For  he  was  tried 
to  be  chiefely  garnished  with  the  grace  of  discretion, 
the  mother  of  all  vertues.  Thus  making  him  bis/top, 
they  sent  him  forthe  to  preach."  And  that  this  is 
what  the  historian  intended  to  intimate,  is  further 
evident  from  what  immediately  follows,  for  says  he, 
"  from  this  island  therefore,  from  the  college  of  these 
monks,  was  Aidan  sent  to  the  province  of  the  Angles, 
who  were  to  be  initiated  into  the  Christian  faith,  hav- 
ing received  the  degree  of  the  episcopate.  At  which 
time  Segenius  presided  over  this  monastery,  as  abbot 
and  presbyter."* 

*  "  Ab  hac  ergo  insula,  ab  horum  collegio  monachorum,  ad  pro- 
vinciam  Anglorum  instituendam  in  Christo,  missus  est  Aidan  acccpto 
gradu  Episcopatus.  Quo  tempore  cidem  monasterio  Segenius  abbas 
et  presbyter  praefuit."   Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  5. 


244 


LETTERS  ON 


As  the  episcopate  which  Aidan  received  at  Iona 
was  conferred  upon  him  by  a  college  of  presbyters, 
with  an  abbot-presbyter  as  tbeir  president  or  mode- 
rator, so  we  are  told  by  Bede,  that  after  he  died,  they 
ordained  Finan  to  succeed  him.  "  But  Finan,"  says 
he,  "  succeeded  him  in  the  episcopate,  and  to  this  he 
was  appointed  from  Hii,  an  island  and  monastery  of 
the  Scots."*  And  again  he  says,  "Bishop  Aidan 
being  dead,  Finan  in  his  stead  received  the  degree  of 
the  episcopate,  being  ordained  and  sent  by  the  Scots,"t 
i.  e.  obviously  the  Scottish  presbyters  in  the  island  of 
Iona,  as  is  stated  in  the  first  passage.  They  appear 
also  to  have  ordained  Colman,  who  became  Metro- 
politan of  York ;  for  when  vindicating  his  mode  of 
celebrating  Easter  in  the  Synod  of  Straneschalch  or 
Whitby,  in  664,  he  said,  "  the  Easter  which  I  keep 
I  received  from  my  elders  [or  presbyters,]  who  sent  me 
hither  as  bishop,  which  all  our  ancestors,  men  beloved 
by  God,  are  known  to  have  celebrated  in  the  same 
manner.":}:  It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  to  deny  that  the 
power  of  ordination  was  exercised  by  these  presbyters; 
and  if  it  was  from  them  that  those  ministers  who  were 
sent  to  England  derived  their  orders,  it  must  have 
been  they  too  who  conferred  their  orders  on  the 
clergy  of  Scotland. 

It  is  mentioned,  I  am  aware,  by  Bede,  that  Finan, 
"seeing  the  success  of  Cedd,"  who  had  been  sent  to 
preach  to  the  East  Saxons,  "  and  having  called  to  him 
two  other  bishops  for  the  ministry  of  ordination,  made 
him  bishop  over  the  nation  of  the  East  Saxons,"  and 
that  Cedd,  "  having  received  the  degree  of  episcopacy, 
returned  to  the  province,  and  with  greater  authority, 
fulfilled  the  work  which  he  had  begun, erected  churches 
in  different  places,  ordained  presbyters  and  deacons, 
who  might  assist  him  in  the  word  of  faith,  and  the 

*  "  Successit  vero  ei  in  episcopatum  Finan,  et  ipse  x III  ab  Hii 
Scottorum  insula  ac  monasterio  destinatus."    Hist.  lib.  iii.  c.  17. 

+  "  Aidano  episcopo  ab  hac  vita  sublato,  Finan  pro  illo  gradum 
episcopatus  a  Scottis  ordinatus  ac  missus  acceperat."    Ibid.  c.  25. 

t  "  Pascha,  inquit,  hoc  quod  agere  soleo  a  majoribus  meis  accepi, 
qui  rac  hue  cpiscopum  miserunt,"  &.C.   Lib.  iii.  c.  25. 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


245 


ministry  of  baptism."*  He  might  be  induced,  how- 
ever, to  ordain  him  in  this  way,  in  compliance  with 
the  prejudices  of  the  Saxons,  who  had  been  previously 
in  connection  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  though  for  a 
time  they  apostatized,  and  might  otherwise  have  con- 
sidered his  orders  as  uncanonical.  And  as  bishop 
Lloyd  acknowledges  that  the  bishops  who  assisted 
Finan  on  that  occasion  were,  as  Bede  says,  "  Scots," 
and  as  they  had  only  like  him  Presbyterian  ordination 
from  the  College  of  Iona,  it  is  plain,  that  upon  your 
principles  the  orders  which  Cedd  himself  received,  and 
those  which  he  afterwards  conferred  upon  others, 
were  perfectly  irregular,  and  so  far  from  preserving, 
they  must  have  contributed  to  destroy  the  apostolical 
succession  in  the  Church  of  England.  I  shall  con- 
sider, however,  more  fully  in  the  following  letter,  the 
effects  resulting  from  these  Scottish  ordinations,  and 
remain, 

Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  "Qui  ubi  prosperatum  ci  opus  evangelii  comperit,  fecit  eum  epis- 
copum  in  gentem  Orientalium  Saxonum,"  &,c.    Hist.  lib.  iii.  c. 22. 

"  It  ought  to  be  observed  that  Bude,"  says  Jamieson,p.  90,  "  when 
speaking  of  the  episcopate,  describes  it  only  by  the  term  gradus,  and 
not  by  any  one  expression  of  difference  of  office  or  order.  Now,  it  is 
well  known,  that  many  learned  men  who  have  opposed  diocesan  Epis- 
copacy, have  admitted  that  the  term  bishop  was  very  early  used  in  the 
Church,  as  denoting  a  distinction  with  respect  to  degree,  while  the 
office  was  held  to  be  essentially  the  same."  In  what  sense  this  dis- 
tinction has  been  made  consult  what  he  says,  p.  331,  332.  And  for 
an  answer  to  the  other  objections  of  Episcopalians  to  the  argument 
for  Presbyterian  Church  Government,  from  the  institutions  of  Iona, 
sec  his  able  Historical  Dissertation. 


246 


LETTER  XVI. 

The  succession  destroyed  in  the  early  Church  of  England,  in  consequence 
of  the  ordination  of  its  first  bishops  by  Scottish  presbyters — Scottish  mis- 
sionaries who  were  ordained  by  presbyters,  acknowledged  by  Usher  to 
have  christianized  the  greater  part  of  England. — The  Presbyterian  Cul- 
dean  Scottish  Church,  asserted  in  the  twelfth  century,  belore  an  assembly 
of  English  bishops  and  nobles,  to  be  the  Mother  Church  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  not  contradicted. — An  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  that 
century  never  consecrated,  and  a  Bishop  of  Norwich  consecrated  by  a 
presbyter  who  was  an  archdeacon. — Succession  destroyed  in  the  Church 
of  Ireland  through  the  ordination  of  many  of  its  clergy  by  the  Scottish 
Culdee  presbyters. — Eight  individuals  who  never  had  any  orders.  Arch- 
bishops of  Armagh,  and  Primates  of  all  Ireland. — Succession  destroyed 
among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Pusey,  are  not 
a  Christian  Church. — Their  first  prelates  in  1610  never  baptized,  and  their 
orders  irregular. — The  orders  of  their  next  bishops  in  1661  uncanonical, 
and  those  of  the  usage  bishops,  from  whom  their  present  bishops  derive 
their  orders,  pronounced  by  the  college  bishops  in  1727  to  be  null  and 
void. 

Reverend  Sir, — I  think  I  may  now  assume  it  as  a 
fact  established  by  the  united  and  uncontradicted  tes- 
timony of  our  earliest  historians,  that  the  Culdees  of 
Iona  were  merely  presbyters.  But  if  this  was  really 
the  case,  it  is  attended  by  consequences  of  a  very 
serious  description  to  diocesan  Episcopacy.  It  pre- 
sents to  us  the  purest  Church  on  earth,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  handfuls  of  humble  Christians  in  the 
valleys  of  Piedmont,  preferring  the  simple  form  of 
Presbytery  to  your  ecclesiastical  polity,  even  in  its 
most  modified  form;  and  when  we  are  asked  by  our 
opponents,  in  the  haughty  spirit  of  Bancroft  and  Hey- 
lin,  where  was  there  a  Church  governed  by  presbyters 
before  the  days  of  Calvin,  we  can  point  to  the  early 
Church  of  Scotland,  which  from  its  very  foundation 
was  Presbyterian.  And  along  with  the  noble  ex- 
ample which  it  exhibits  of  steadfast  adherence  to  the 
government  and  doctrine  of  the  Primitive  Church, 
while  diocesan  Episcopacy  existed  only  in  Churches 
which  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  tvere  tainted  with  its  corruptions,  or 
which  adopted  the  superstitions  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
it  furnishes  an  argument  against  your  favourite  doc- 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


247 


trine  of  the  apostolical  succession,  which  I  challenge 
you  to  answer.  It  was  they  who  ordained  for  seve- 
ral hundreds  of  years,  till  the  emissaries  of  Rome  ob- 
tained the  ascendency,  the  whole  of  the  ministers  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland.  And  if  your  position  be  true, 
that  ordination  of  bishops,  who  have  themselves  been 
regularly  baptized  and  ordained  by  those  who  had 
power  to  do  it,  in  an  uninterrupted  series  from  the 
Apostles,  be  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  Christian 
Church  and  a  Christian  ministry,  and  a  covenanted 
title  to  salvation,  it  evidently  follows,  that  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  during  all  that  time,  even  passing  by  the 
previous  period  of  her  history,  could  not  be  a  Church ; 
nor  did  she  possess  within  her  pale  a  single  minister 
or  a  single  individual  who  could  cherish  the  smallest 
hope  of  salvation.  And  if  such  was  her  state  during 
that  long  period,  I  would  like  to  be  informed  how  the 
defect  was  remedied,  and  how  our  Scottish  Episco- 
palians, who  are  the  descendants  of  these  men,  not- 
withstanding their  new  and  lofty  pretensions  to  the 
apostolical  succession,  can  be  in  a  better  condition  in 
the  present  day. 

Not  only,  however,  was  the  Church  of  Scotland 
supplied  with  ministers  ordained  by  these  presbyters, 
but  we  have  decisive  evidence  that  the  greater  part  of 
England  was  planted  with  churches  by  zealous  and 
active  Christian  ministers,  who  had  no  other  orders 
except  what  they  received  at  Iona.  It  was  they,  as 
we  have  seen,  who  ordained  Cormac,  Aidan,  and 
Finan ;  and,  in  addition  to  them,  they  sent  forth  many 
others,  who  laboured  with  great  and  remarkable  suc- 
cess. We  have  a  striking  testimony  to  this  fact  in  a 
speech  delivered  in  a.  p.  1176,  by  Gilbert  Murray, 
then  a  younger  Scottish  clerk,  and  afterwards  a  bishop, 
before  the  Pope's  Legate,  when  the  latter  attempted 
to  bring  the  Church  of  Scotland  into  subjection  to  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  and  the  kingdom  of  England. 
"  It  is  true,"  said  he, "  English  nation — thou  attemptest, 
in  thy  wretched  ambition  and  lust  of  domineering,  to 
bring  under  thy  jurisdiction  thy  neighbour  provinces 
and  nations,  more  noble,  I  will  not  say  in  multitude, 


248 


LETTERS  ON 


or  power,  but  in  lineage,  and  antiquity;  unto  whom, 
if  thou  wilt  consider  ancient  records,  thou  shouldst 
rather  have  been  humbly  obedient,  or  at  least,  laying 
aside  thy  rancour,  have  reigned  together  in  perpetual 
love  ;  and  now  with  all  wickedness  of  pride  that  thou 
showest,  without  any  reason  or  law,  but  in  thy  am- 
bitious power,  thou  seekest  to  oppress  thy  mother, 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  which  from  the  beginning 
hath  been  catholique,  and  free,  and  which  brought 
thee,  when  thou  wast  straying  in  the  icilderness  of 
heathenism,  into  the  safe-guard  of  the  true  faith 
and  way  unto  life,  even  unto  Jesus  Christ,  the  author 
of  eternal  rest.  She  did  wash  thy  kings  and  princes 
in  the  laver  of  holy  baptism;  she  taught  thee  the  com- 
mandments of  God,  and  instructed  thee  in  moral 
duties;  she  did  accept  many  of  thy  nobles  and  others 
of  meaner  rank,  when  they  were  desirous  to  learn  to 
read,  and  gladly  gave  them  daily  entertainment 
without  price,  books  also  to  read,  and  instruction 
freely;  she  did  also  appoint,  ordain,  and  consecrate 
thy  bishops  and  priests  ;  by  the  space  of  thirty  years 
and  above,  she  maintained  the  primacy  and  pon- 
tifical dignity  within  thee  on  the  north  side  of 
Thames,  as  Beda  witnesseth. 

"  And  now,  I  pray  thee,  what  recompense  renderest 
thou  now  unto  her  that  hath  bestowed  so  many  bene- 
fits on  thee  ?  Is  it  bondage,  or  such  as  Judea  rendered 
unto  Christ,  evil  for  good?  It  seemeth  no  other  thing. 
If  thou  couldst  do  as  thou  wouldst,  thou  wouldst 
draw  thy  mother,  the  Church  of  Scotland,  whom  thou 
shouldst  honour  with  all  reverence,  into  the  basest 
and  most  wretchedest  bondage.  Fie,  for  shame,  what 
is  more  base?"  &.C.* 

*  Petrie's  Church  History,  p.  378.  He  adds,  "When  Gilbert  had 
so  made  an  end,  some  English,  both  prelates  and  nobles,  commend 
the  yong  clerk,  that  he  had  spoken  so  boldly  for  his  nation,  without 
flattering,  and  not  abashed  at  the  gravity  of  such  authority  ;  but  others, 
because  he  spoke  contrary  unto  their  minde,  said  a  Scot  is  naturally 
violent,  and  in  noso  Scoti  piper.  But  Roger,  Archbishop  of  York, 
which  principally  had  moved  this  business  to  bring  the  Church  of 
Scotland  unto  his  See,  uttered  a  groan,  and  then  with  a  merry  coun- 
tenance laid  his  hands  on  Gilbert's  head,  saying,  Ex  tua pharetra  non 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


249 


"  St.  Aidan  and  St.  Finan,"  says  Archbishop  Usher, 
"  deserve  to  be  honoured  by  the  English  nation,  with 
as  venerable  a  remembrance  as,  I  do  not  say,  Wilfrid 
and  Cuthbert,  but  Austin  the  monk,  and  his  followers. 
For,  by  the  ministry  of  Aidan  was  the  kingdom  of 
Northumberland  recovered  from  Paganism,  where- 
unto  belonged  then,  beside  the  shire  of  Northumber- 
land, and  the  lands  beyond  it  unto  Edinburgh  Firth, 
Cumberland  also,  and  Westmoreland,  Lancashire, 
Yorkshire,  and  the  bishopric  of  Durham;  and  by  the 
means  of  Finan,  not  only  was  the  kingdom  of  the 
East  Saxons,  which  contained  Essex,  Middlesex,  and 
half  of  Herefordshire,  regained,  but  also  the  large 
kingdom  of  Mercia  converted  first  unto  Christianity; 
which  comprehended  under  it,  Gloucestershire,  Here- 
fordshire, Worcestershire,  Warwickshire,  Leicester- 
shire, Rutlandshire,  Northamptonshire,  Lincolnshire, 
Huntingdonshire,  Bedfordshire,  Buckinghamshire, 
Shropshire,  Nottinghamshire,  Cheshire,  and  the  other 
half  of  Hertfordshire.  The  Scottish  that  professed 
no  subjection  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  were  they  that 
sent  preachers  for  the  conversion  of  these  countries, 
and  ordained  bishops  to  govern  them,  namely,  Aidan, 
Finan  and  Colman,  successively,  for  the  kingdom  of 
Northumberland;  for  the  East  Saxons,  Cedd,  the  bro- 
ther of  Ceadda,  the  Bishop  of  York,  before  mentioned; 
for  the  Middle  Angles,  which  inhabited  Leicestershire, 
and  the  Mercians,  Diuma;  for  the  paucity  of  priests, 
saith  Bede,  constrained  one  bishop  to  be  appointed 
over  two  people,  and  after  him  Cellach  and  Trum- 
here.  And  these  with  their  followers,  notwithstand- 
ing their  division  from  the  See  of  Rome,  were,  for 
their  extraordinary  sanctity  of  life,  and  painfulness  in 
preaching  the  Gospel,  wherein  they  went  far  beyond 
those  of  the  other  side,  that  afterwards  thrust  them 
out,  and  entered  in  upon  their  labours,  exceedingly 
reverenced  by  all  that  knew  them."*    And,  says  Dr. 

exiit  ilia  sairitia.  This  Gilbert  was  much  respected  at  home' after 
that."  He  was  soon  after  made  Dean  of  Murray,  and  Great  Cham- 
berlain of  Scotland. 

*  Discourse  on  the  Religion  anciently  professed  by  the  Irish  and 
British,  chap.  x. 


250 


LETTERS  ON 


Jamieson,  "  it  deserves  also  to  be  mentioned,  that  how 
little  soever  some  now  think  of  Scottish  orders,  it  is 
evident  from  the  testimony  of  the  most  ancient  and 
most  respectable  historian  of  South  Britain,  that  by 
means  of  Scottish  missionaries,  or  those  whom  they 
had  instructed  or  ordained,  not  only  the  Northum- 
brians, but  the  Middle  Angles,  the  Mercians  and  East 
Saxons,  all  the  way  to  the  river  Thames,  that  is,  the 
inhabitants  of  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  coun- 
try now  called  England,  were  converted  to  Christi- 
anity. It  is  equally  evident,  that  for  some  time  they 
acknowledged  subjection  to  the  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment of  the  Scots;  and  that  the  only  reason  why  they 
lost  their  influence,  was,  that  their  missionaries  chose 
rather  to  give  up  their  charges,  than  to  submit  to  the 
prevailing  influence  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  which 
the  Saxons  of  the  West  and  of  Kent  had  subjected 
themselves."*  But  if  the  Church  of  Scotland,  when 
she  was  governed  by  presbyters,  as  was  asserted  by 
Murray,  without  any  contradiction  from  the  English 
prelates,  was  the  Mother  Church  of  the  Church  of 
England,  baptized  your  kings,  princes  and  nobles,  and 
taught  them  to  read,  converted  the  greater  part  of 
your  countrymen,  and  ordained  your  bishops,  and  if 
some  of  her  ministers,  who  conferred  on  them  their 
orders,  for  more  than  thirty  years  imre  invested  with 
the  prifRcicy,  you  will  be  bold  indeed  if  you  venture 
to  affirm,  that  there  has  always  been  an  uninterrupted 
apostolical  succession  of  diocesan  bishops  in  your 
National  Church.  And  among  all  the  strange  and 
wonderful  things  which  appear  in  your  own  conduct, 
and  that  of  your  followers,  in  reference  to  this  contro- 
versy, it  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary,  to  see  you 
unchurching  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  whole  of 
the  other  Presbyterian  Churches,  because  their  minis- 
ters received  their  orders  from  presbyters,  ivhile  your 
own  Church,  after  all  your  high  and  boastful  preten- 
sions, owed  its  existence,  and  the  very  bishops,  who 
began  your  vaunted  apostolical  succession,  were  in- 

*  Historical  Account  of  the  Ancient  Culdecs,  p.  91. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


251 


debted  for  their  orders,  to  men  who  had  been  ordain- 
ed by  Scottish  presbyters! 

It  is  mentioned,  1  know,  by  Bede,  that  when  King 
Oswy  decided  in  favour  of  Wilfrid,  a  zealous  partisan 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  Synod  held  at  Streone- 
shalch  or  Whitby,  in  662,  to  determine  the  contro- 
versy about  Easter,  "  Colman  perceiving  that  his 
doctrine  was  rejected,  and  his  sect  (as  the  historian 
expresses  it)  despised,  left  his  bishopric  at  Lindisfarne, 
and  having  carried  his  adherents  with  him,  returned 
to  Scotland."  And  he  further  states  that  after  Wilfrid 
was  made  a  bishop,  "  he  introduced  into  the  churches 
of  the  Angles  a  great  many  rules  of  the  Catholic  obser- 
vance. Whence  it  followed,  that  the  Catholic  institu- 
tion daily  increasing,  all  the  Scots,  who  had  resided 
among  the  Angles,  either  conformed  to  these,  or 
returned  to  their  own  country."*  But  still  those  of 
them  who  remained  in  your  Church,  after  it  had  been 
founded  by  presbyters,  and  who  complied  with  the 
Popish  rites  and  canons,  and  those  of  the  English 
whom  they  had  baptized  and  ordained,  could  not 
carry  on  the  succession,  as  the  orders  of  the  former, 
and  the  baptism  and  orders  of  the  latter,  had  been 
received  from  men  who  were  ordained  by  presbyters, 
and  the  effects  of  these  fatal  and  irremediable  irregu- 
larities must  remain  in  your  Church  at  the  present  day. 
So  sensible,  accordingly,  was  the  Popish  party,  of  the 
difference  between  the  orders  which  were  obtained 
from  the  Culdean  presbyters,  and  those  which  were 
conferred  by  the  diocesan  bishops  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  in  the  fifth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Ceal- 
hythe  in  England,  in  816,  it  is  decreed,  that  "no  Scot 
be  permitted  to  assume  to  himself  the  ministerial  office 
in  any  one's  diocese,  or  that  it  be  lawful  to  give  con- 
sent to  his  touching  any  thing  of  holy  orders,  or  to 
receive  from  them  in  baptism,  or  in  the  celebration 
of  mass,  or  that  they  should  give  the  Eucharist  to  the 
people,  because  we  are  uncertain  by  tvhom  they  are 

*  Hist.  iii.  25,  2G.  "Unde  factum  est,  ut  crescente  per  dies  insti- 
tutione  Catholica,  Scotti  omncs  qui  inter  Anglos  morauantur,  aut  li is 
manus  darent,  aut  suam  redirent  ad  patriam."    Ibid.  iii.  29. 


252 


LETTERS  OS 


ordained,  if  by  any  one.  We  know  that  it  isenjoined 
in  the  canons,  that  no  bishop  (or)  presbyter  should 
attempt  to  intrude  upon  the  parish  of  another,  without 
the  consent  of  its  proper  bishop.  Much  more  should 
the  receiving  of  holy  offices  from  foreign  nations  be 
avoided,  where  they  have  no  order  for  metropolitans, 
nor  respect  for  other  orders.7'*  And  in  a  letter  of 
Richard,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  written  about  the 
year  1170,  and  published  among  the  works  of  Peter 
of  Blois,  he  complains,  that  "in  these  days  certain 
false  bishops  of  Ireland,  or  pretending  the  barbarism 
of  the  Scottish  language,  although  they  have  received 
from  no  one  imposition  of  hands,  discharge  episcopal 
functions  to  the  people."  And  he  orders  all  his  clergy, 
that  "  they  should  take  care  to  prohibit  the  episcopal 
ministrations  of  all  belonging  to  a  barbarous  nation, 
or  of  uncertain  ordination. "t  If  ministers  then,  at  all 
these  periods,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe,  though 
they  had  no  other  orders  than  those  which  they 
received  from  the  Culdee  presbyters,  baptized  many 
who  were  afterwards  bishops,  or  priests,  or  deacons, 
and  even  at  first  ordained  your  prelates,  who  ordained 
others,  from  whom  your  present  bishops  derive  their 
orders,  it  must  be  evident  to  every  fair  and  impartial 
judge,  that  the  uninterrupted  apostolical  diocesan  suc- 
cession, which  you  and  Mr.  Gladstone  represent  as 
essential  to  the  very  existence  of  a  Christian  Church, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Church  of  England. 

I  would  notice  only  further  in  regard  to  your 

*  "  Quinto  interdictum  est  ut  nullus  permittalur  de  genere  Scot- 
torum  in  alicujus  diocesi  sibi  ministerium  usurpare,  nequeei  consen- 
tire  liceat  ex  sacro  ordine  aliquod  attingere,  vel  ab  eis  accipere  in 
baptismo,  aut  in  celebratione  missarum,  vel  etiam  Eucharistiam 
populo  praebere,  quia  ineertum  est  nobis,  unde  et  an  ab  aliquo  ordinen- 
tur.  Scimus  quomodo  incanonibus  praecipitur  ut  nullus  episcoporum 
(vel)  presbyterorum  invadere  temptaverit  alius  parochiam  nisi  cum 
consensu  proprii  episcopi.  Tanto  magis  respuendum  est  ab  aliis 
nationibus  sacra  ministeria  percipere,  cum  quibus  nullus  ordo  metro- 
politanis,  nec  honor  aliis  habeatur."    Spelman  Concil.t  i.  p.  329. 

+  Diebus  istis  quidcm  pseudoepiscopi  Hibernienses  aut  Scoticae 
linguae  simulantes  barbariem,  cum  a  nullo  impositionem  manus  ac- 
ceperint  episcopalia  populis  ministrant,"  &x.  Pet.  Blessensis  apud 
Scld.  ut  sup.  15. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


253 


Church,  that  the  canons  of  the  Synod  held  at  Calcuith, 
A.  d.  787,  as  Innet  remarks,  "  were  subscribed  by  King 
Offa,  Janibert,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  twelve 
other,  bishops,  some  of  whose  names,  and  what  is 
more,  their  Sees,  are  entirely  unknown  to  our  histo- 
rians."-* Selden  mentions  an  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury in  the  twelth  century,  who  was  invested  with 
his  office  merely  by  receiving  from  the  King  the  pas- 
toral staff  and  ring,  without  any  consecration.  "Much 
stir,"  says  he,  "both  at  Rome  and  in  England,  was 
touching  investiture  of  bishops  and  abbots  by  lay 
hands,  Anselm,  Archprelate  of  Canterbury,  mainly 
opposing  himself  against  it,  whose  persuasion  so  at 
length  wrought  with  the  King,  that  it  was  permitted 
to  be  discontinued  from  that  time.  Notwithstanding 
this,  in  the  year  1107,  by  the  ring  and  pastoral  staff, 
per  annulum  et  baculum,  (as  Matthew  Paris  tells,) 
was,  by  the  same  Henry,  one  Rodolph  made  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury."!  And  Godwin  informs  us, 
that  upon  the  death  of  Thomas  Piercy,  the  nineteenth 
Bishop  of  Norwich,  his  successor  was  ordained  by 
the  archdeacon,  who  was  only  a  presbyter.  "  The 
fame  of  his  death,"  says  he,  flying  swiftly  beyond  the 
seas,  came  unto  the  ears  of  one  Spencer,  a  gentleman 
greatly  esteemed  for  his  valour  and  skill  in  martial 
affairs,  that  served  the  Pope  at  that  time  in  his  wars. 
Of  him  with  small  entreaty,  he  obtained  this  dignity 
for  a  brother  of  his,  named  Henry,  a  man  of  his  own 
profession,  which  of  a  soldier  being  made  a  bishop, 
came  into  England,  March  16,  1370,  and  was  conse- 
crated in  his  own  church  by  the  Archdeacon  of  Nor- 

*  Orig.  Anglic,  vol.  i.  p.  203. 

t  "  At  ab  eo  tempore  (Matthew  of  Westminster  after  others  reports 
it,)  nunquam  per  donationem  baculi  pastoralis  vel  annuli  quisquam 
de  episcopatu  vel  abbatia  per  regem  vel  quernlibet  laicum  personam 
investiretur  in  Anglia,"  &c.  Works,  vol.  iii.  Selden  says  that  even 
clerks  ordained,  "  and  being  then  capable,  without  any  new  ordination 
of  the  bishop,  of  any  spiritual  function,  would  take  investiture  of  other 
churches  without  consent  or  knowledge  of  the  bishop.  Neither  was 
this  practice  of  investitures  only  in  bestowing  of  parish  churches.  In 
monasteries  and  bishoprics  the  like  was."  Works,  vol.  iii.  c.  1124, 
1125.    Could  baptisms  and  orders  received  from  them  be  valid? 


254 


LETTERS  ON 


wich."*  I  might  easily  specify  many  similar  in- 
stances, but  I  consider  it  as  unnecessary ;  and  I  leave 
it  to  any  one  who  reflects  on  these  facts  to  say,  whether 
the  succession  as  transmitted  by  such  bishops  and  even 
archdeacons,  can  be  preserved  unbroken  in  the  Church 
of  England,  or  among  the  Irish  or  Scottish  Episcopa- 
lians, many  of  whose  bishops,  as  I  shall  immediately 
show,  derived  their  orders  from  the  prelates  of  your 
Church. 

If  the  succession  has  been  interrupted  on  many 
occasions  in  the  Church  of  England,  it  follows,  from 
the  circumstance  to  which  I  have  just  now  alluded, 
as  well  as  from  other  considerations,  that  it  must  have 
been  completely  destroyed  in  the  Church  of  Ireland, 
-  and  that  none  of  her  ministers  have  a  title  to  the 
character  of  Christian  ministers,  nor  any  of  her  mem- 
bers a  covenanted  right  to  the  blessings  of  salvation. 
Independently  of  what  has  been  said  of  the  state  of 
that  Church  as  governed  by  presbyters  before  the 
arrival  of  Palladius,  (for  he  visited  Ireland  before  he 
came  to  Scotland,)  we  are  informed  by  Jocelyn,  in  his 
Life  of  St.  Patrick,  that  Columba,  who  was  called 
Columcille,  was  the  founder  of  a  hundred  monasteries 
in  Ireland.!  And  says  Notker  Balbulus,  who  lived 
in  the  tenth  century,  "In  Scotland,  in  the  island  of 
Ireland,  died  St.  Columba,  surnamed  by  his  own  peo- 
ple Columkilli,  because  he  was  the  institutor,  founder, 
and  governor  of  many  cells,  that  is,  monasteries  or 
churches,  whence  the  abbot  of  the  monastery  over 
which  he  last  presided,  (Iona.)  and  where  he  rests,  in 
opposition  to  the  custom  of  the  Church,  is  accounted 
the  primate  of  all  the  Hibernian  bishops."%  "  On 
which,"  says  Dr.  Jamieson,  "by  the  way  we  may 

*  Catalogue  of  the  Bishops  of  England,  p.  350. 

t  Columba,  qui  Collumcille  dicitur,  et  centum  coenobiorum  extitit 
fundator."    Vita  S.  Patricii,  c.  69.    Messingham,  p.  42. 

t  "  In  Scotia,  insula  Hibernia,  depositio  Saucti  Columbae  cogno- 
mento  apud  suos  Columhkilli,  eo  quod  multarum  cellarum,  id  est 
monasteriorum  vel  ecclesiarum,  institutor,  fundator,  et  rector  exlite- 
rit,  adeo  ut  abbas  monasterii  cui  novissime  praefuit,  et  ubi  requiescit, 
contra  morem  ecclesiasticum,  primus  omnium  Hibernensium  habca- 
lux  episcoporum."    Martyrologia  apud  Messingham,  p.  182. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


255 


observe,  that  the  claim  of  superiority  on  the  part  of 
the  monastery  at  Hii  was  acknowledged,  even  in 
Ireland,  so  late  as  the  tenth  century."*  But,  if  Co- 
lumba  was  recognised  as  the  Primate  of  Ireland,  and 
the  governor  of  the  hundred  churches  which  he 
founded,  and  if,  though  only  a  presbyter,  he  exercised 
the  same  powers  of  ordination  in  regard  to  their  pres- 
byters or  the  senior  monks,  which  along  with  the 
other  presbyters,  he  exercised  at  Iona,  it  must  have 
interrupted  at  the  beginning,  and  affected  afterwards 
the  apostolical  succession;  and  if  it  was  broken  at  that 
period,  it  is  impossible  to  rectify  it  in  the  present  day. 
Besides,  it  is  stated  in  that  rare  and  interesting  work, 
the  Monasticum  Hibernicum,  that  "Colman  having 
been  a  bishop  in  England,  (but  having  the  orders  only 
which  he  received  from  the  presbyters  at  Iona,)  was 
no  sooner  settled  at  Inisbofinde,  (in  Ireland,)  but  that 
place  became  a  bishoprick;  so  that  St.  Coiman,  who 
had  before  been  called  Bishop  of  Lindisfarn,  was 
afterwards  styled  Bishop  of  Inisbofinde ;  and  the  same 
saint  going  afterwards  to  Mayo,  that  place  was  like- 
wise a  bishoprick,  which  was  united  to  that  of  Inis- 
bofinde; so  certain  is  it,  that  formerly,  in  the  British 
islands,  bishopricks  were  not  regulated  and  settled, 
but  the  bishops  were  movable,  without  being  con- 
fined to  any  certain  diocese.  This  is  the  reason  that 
in  the  first  ages  we  find  so  many  bishops  in  Ireland; 
for  in  St.  Patrick's  days,  there  were  three  hundred 
and  fifty  at  one  and  the  same  time,  though,  as  Colgan 
owns,  there  were  never  near  so  many  bishopricks  in 
Ireland.  It  is  very  likely,  that  when  the  ancient  his- 
torians speak  of  so  great  a  number  of  bishopricks  in 
Ireland,  they  only  meant  those  abbeys  in  which  these 
moving  or  titular  bishops  were  abbots;  and  those 
houses  that  were  so  numerous  ceased  to  be  bishopricks 

*  Histor.  Account  of  the  Culdees,  p.  356. 

The  following  testimony  to  the  influence  of  the  Culdees  in  Ireland 
is  given  by  Dr.  Sedgwick:  11  Corruption,"  says  he,  "  was  powerfully 
retarded  by  the  firmness  of  the  hierarchy  and  the  Culdees.  The 
latter  were  looked  up  to  as  the  depositaries  of  the  original  national 
faith,  and  were  most  highly  respected  by  the  people  for  their  sanctity 
and  learning."    Antiquities,  p.  94. 


256 


LETTERS  ON 


the  very  moment  the  titular  bishops  and  abbots  hap- 
pened to  die,  or  to  shift  their  monasteries."*  But  if 
such  was  the  nature  of  these  bishoprics,  (and  it  is  con- 
firmed by  what  was  previously  quoted  from  Toland,) 
and  if  Colman  and  others  of  the  Culdean  bishops,  who 
were  ordained  only  by  presbyters,  went  over  to  Ire- 
land, settled  there,  and  ordained  bishops  as  presby- 
ters, and  deacons,  they  must  have  contributed  still 
further  to  destroy  the  succession,  and  the  injury  which 
they  must  have  done  to  it  is  absolutely  irretrievable. 

And,  in  short,  even  though  you  were  able  to  remove 
these  difficulties,  we  have  decisive  evidence  that  the 
succession  was  broken  at  a  still  later  period.  Sir 
James  Ware,  in  his  Prelates  of  Armagh,  says,  "  St. 
Bernard,  in  the  Life  of  St.  Malachy,  affirms,  that 
Celsus  being  near  to  his  death,  was  solicitous  that 
Malachy  Morgair,  then  Bishop  of  Connor,  should 
succeed  him,  and  sent  his  staff  to  him  as  his  successor. 
Nor  was  he  disappointed,  for  Malachy  succeeded  him, 
though  not  immediately;  for  one  Maurice,  son  of 
Donald,  a  person  of  noble  birth,  for  five  years,  (says 
the  same  Bernard,)  by  secular  power,  held  that  church 
in  possession,  not  as  a  bishop,  but  a  tyrant,  for  the 
ambition  of  some  in  power  had  at  that  time  introduced 
a  diabolical  custom  of  pretending  to  ecclesiastical  sees 
by  hereditary  succession,  not  suffering  any  bishops 
but  the  descendants  of  their  own  family.  Nor  was 
this  kind  of  execrable  succession  of  short  continu- 
ance ;  for  fifteen  generations,  (or  succession  of  bi- 
shops, as  Colgan  has  it,)  had  succeeded  in  that  man- 
ner;  and  so  far  had  that  evil  and  adulterate  generation 
confirmed  the  wicked  course,  that  sometimes  though 
clerks  of  their  blood  might  fail,  yet  bishops  never 
failed.  Infine  eight  married  men, and  without  orders, 
though  scholars,  were  predecessors  to  Celsus,  from 
whence  proceeded  that  general  dissolution  of  ecclesias- 
tical discipline,  (whereof  we  have  spoken  largely 
before,)  that  contempt  of  censures,  and  decay  of  reli- 
gion throughout  Ireland.    Thus  Bernard.  The  names 

*  Pages  82,  83. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


257 


of  these  eight  married  men  unordained,  Colgan  de- 
livers in  the  place  above  cited."*  If  these  eight  indi- 
viduals, however,  who  were  without  orders,  were 
placed  in  succession,  not  merely  in  a  humble  station 
of  that  Church,  but  at  the  very  head  of  it,  or  in  the 
Primacy  of  all  Ireland,  and  ordained  bishops,  exercised 
the  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  performed 
confirmation,  I  would  like  to  be  informed,  whether 
you  really  think  the  apostolical  succession  was  pre- 
served during  that  long  and  disastrous  period,  under 
the  presidency  of  men  who,  though  elevated  to  be 
Bishops  of  Armagh,  had  not  even  the  order  of  deacons. 
And  it  is  asserted  by  Dr.  Monck  Mason,  that  "the 
Bishopricks  of  Dublin,  of  Waterford  and  of  Limerick 
were  erected  by  the  Danes,  and  that  if  we  take  up  the 
ancient  letters  of  the  Irish,  which  are  published  in 
Ussher's  Sylloge,  we  shall  find  abundant  matter  to 
show,  that  the  bishops  of  those  Sees  disclaimed  all 
dependence  on  that  of  Armagh,  and  professed  obedi- 
ence immediately  to  Canterbury."!  But  if  this  be 
the  case,  then,  as  it  was  demonstrated  formerly,  that 
the  apostolical  succession  had  been  broken  in  many 
instances  in  your  National  Church,  and  had  been  in- 
terrupted in  particular  in  the  See  of  Canterbury,^  it 

*  Bishops  of  Armagh,  p.  9. 

t  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Irish  Saints,  p.  189. 

t  Neale,  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  ii.  p.  89,  90,  mentions 
some  things  which  took  place  at  a  later  period,  and  which  must  have 
affected  the  succession.  "  After  these,"  says  he,  "  Mr.  Rohert  Blair 
came  from  Scotland  to  Bangor,  (J  623,)  Mr.  Hamilton  to  Belly  water, 
and  Mr.  Livingston  to  Killinshy,  in  the  County  of  Down,  with  Mr. 
Welsh,  Dunbar,  and  others.  Mr.  Blair  was  a  zealous  Presbyterian, 
and  scrupled  episcopal  ordination  ;  but  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  com- 
promised the  difference,  by  agreeing  that  the  other  Scots  presbyters 
of  Mr.  Blair's  persuasion  should  join  with  him,  and  that  such  pas. 
sages  in  the  established  form  of  ordination  as  Mr.  Bhir  and  his 
brethren  disliked  should  be  omitted,  or  exchanged  for  others  of  their 
own  approbation.  Thus  was  Mr.  Blair  ordained  publicly,  in  the 
church  of  Bangor;  the  Bishop  of  Raphoc  did  the  same  for  Mr.  Living, 
ston;  and  all  the  Scots  who  xoere  ordained  in  Ireland, from  this  time  to 
the  year  1642,  were  ordained  after  the  same  manner  ;  all  of  them  enjoy- 
ed the  churches  and  tithes,  though  they  remained  Presbyterian,  and 
used  not  the  Liturgy;  nay,  the  bishops  consulted  them  about  affairs 
of  common  concernment  to  the  Church,  and  some  of  them  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Convocation  in  1634." 

17 


258 


LETTERS  OX 


evidently  follows,  that  its  effects  must  have  extended 
to  these  Irish  bishoprics,  and  taken  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  remarks,  it  proves,  that  upon  your  prin- 
ciples, the  Church  of  Ireland  must  long  ago  have  ceased 
to  be  a  Christian  Church. 

Nor  are  the  Scottish  Episcopalians  who  have  dis- 
carded the  declaration  of  their  old  confession,  that 
"lineal  descense  is  not  a  mark  of  the  true  Church,"  and 
are  as  zealous  as  yourself  for  an  uninterrupted  apos- 
tolical diocesan  succession,  as  absolutely  indispen- 
sable to  the  very  existence  of  a  Church,  in  a  better 
situation;  for,  as  the  succession  has  frequently  been 
broken  among  them,  it  is  manifest,  upon  their  own 
principles,  that  they  cannot  be  a  Church,  that  they  are 
utterly  destitute  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  that 
none  of  them  can  have  a  covenanted  title  to  salvation. 
The  succession  must  have  been  broken,  as  I  have  at- 
tempted to  show,  when  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years  before  the  coming  of  Palladius,  their  forefathers 
were  governed,  as  well  as  instructed,  by  presbyters 
"without  bishops."*  It  was  interrupted,  again,  for  a 
much  longer  period,  when  the  Culdees  were  in  the 
ascendant,  and  when  the  ministers  of  the  Church,  till 
the  appointment  of  the  first  Popish  bishop  at  St.  An- 
drews, were  commonly  ordained  by  presbyters.  It 
was  broken  among  them  repeatedly  at  successive 
periods,  when  Episcopacy  was  attempted  to  be  forced 
upon  Scotland  for  political  purposes  by  the  family  of 
the  Stuarts,  till  they  were  driven  from  the  throne. 
Prior,  indeed,  to  the  first  of  these  periods,  or  before 
the  Reformation,  Keith  acknowledges  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  trace  the  lists  of  the  bishops  in  some  of 
their  Sees;  for,  as  was  noticed  already  in  one  of  the 

*  When  Palladius  is  said  to  have  been  "  sent  to  the  Scots  believing 
in  Christ  as  their  first  bishop,"  Archbishop  Usher  thinks  that  the 
Scots  were  the  Irish,  and  that  it  means  he  was  sent  to  be  their  pri- 
mate, for  lie  asserts,  that  four  bishops  had  previously  been  sent  as 
bishops  to  Ireland.  But  it  is  now  generally  admittted,  as  Professor 
Killen  remarks,  that  these  persons  lived  after  the  time  of  Palladius, 
and  Dr.  Mason  acknowledges  that  the  title  of  primate  was  not  then 
known  in  Ireland.  See  the  able  Defence  of  Presbytery  by  the  Minis- 
ters of  the  General  Synod  of  Ulster,  p.  69  . 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


259 


notes,  he  says  of  the  diocese  of  Dumblane,  "  the  writs 
of  this  See  have  been  so  neglected,  or  perhaps  wilfully 
destroyed,  that  no  light  can  be  got  from  thence  to 
guide  us  aright  in  making  up  even  the  list  of  its  an- 
cient bishops."  And  the  same,  too,  is  the  state  of 
others,  for  though  you  meet  with  the  names  of  bishops, 
you  have  no  evidence  that  their  baptisms  or  orders 
were  regular,  and  without  this  the  names  must  go  for 
nothing.  Nay,  Dr.  Jamieson  proves  that  some  of 
those  who  are  mentioned  as  bishops  in  Spottiswood's 
lists  were  not  bishops.  And  the  following  is  the  con- 
fession of  Mr.  Perceval  respecting  the  lists  of  bishops 
at  the  second  of  these  periods.  "  It  is  with  regret 
that  I  find  myself  unable  to  give  more  particulars  of 
the  consecrations  in  Scotland  between  1662  and  1688. 
A  collection  of  ecclesiastical  records  belonging  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  which  had  been  deposited  by 
Bishop  Campbell  in  the  Library  of  Zion  College, 
London,  was  burnt  in  the  fire  which  destroyed  the 
House  of  Parliament,  where  it  had  been  taken  for 
some  purpose  of  inquiry.  These  records,  I  am  informed, 
related  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Glasgow,  (which  had 
under  its  superintendence  three  hundred  ministers,) 
and  would  probably  have  furnished  information  of 
the  consecrations  in  that  archbishopric.  //  is  possible 
that  the  Registers  of  St.  Andrews  are  still  in  existence, 
though  it  is  not  at  present  known  where."  And  yet, 
it  is  upon  evidence  like  this,  or  rather  upon  nothing 
which  they  would  admit  to  be  satisfactory  evidence 
of  any  other  fact,  that  the  Scottish  Episcopalians  be- 
lieve in  the  preservation  of  their  uninterrupted  apos- 
tolical diocesan  succession. 

At  the  first  of  the  periods  to  which  I  have  now 
alluded,  or  in  the  year  1610,  John  Spottiswoode,  mi- 
nister of  Calder,  Andrew  Lamb,  minister  of  Burnt- 
island, and  Gavin  Hamilton,  minister  of  Hamilton, 
were,  by  the  command  of  James  the  First,  ordained 
at  London  to  the  bishoprics  of  Glasgow,  Brechin,  and 
Galloway;  but  so  far  was  that  act  from  maintaining 
the  succession,  that  if  it  had  existed  previously,  it 
would  have  been  utterly  destroyed.    In  the  first 


260 


LETTERS  ON 


place,  the  Bishops  of  London,  Ely,  and  Bath  could 
not  ordain  them  canonically,  for,  according  to  your 
principles,  and  those  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  as 
they  had  received  only  Presbyterian  or  schismatical 
baptism,  and  were  not  rebaptized,  they  were  not  even 
Christians;  and  though  they  became  nominally  bishops, 
yet,  as  they  remained  unbaptized  till  the  day  of  their 
death,  all  the  orders  which  they  conferred  upon  others, 
after  they  were  raised  to  the  episcopate,  must  have 
been  invalid.  And,  secondly,  they  were  not  ordained 
first  to  be  deacons,  and  then  presbyters,  before  they 
were  made  bishops,  but  their  previous  ordination  as 
Scottish  presbyters,  which  had  been  performed  by 
presbyters,  was  sustained  ;  and  as  some,  though  lay- 
men, were  in  times  of  great  confusion  elevated  to  be 
prelates  without  passing  through  these  inferior  orders, 
they  were  made  bishops  at  once,  or  per  saltum* 
But  this,  you  must  be  aware,  was  in  direct  opposition, 
to  the  tenth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  in  the 
year  347,  which  enjoins  that  no  one  shall  be  made  a 
bishop  till  he  has  first  been  ordained  a  deacon,  and 
a  presbyter.  Nor  was  the  reason  which  was  assigned 
for  it  by  Bancroft,  namely,  that  the  higher  office  im- 
plied the  lower,  at  all  satisfactory  ;t  for,  upon  the  same 

*  "  A  bishoppe,"  says  Dr.  Field,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Church, 
book  iii.  p.  157,  "  ordained  per  saltum,  that  never  had  the  ordination 
of  a  presbyter,  can  neither  consecrate  and  administer  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  body,  nor  ordaine  a  presbyter,  himselfe  being  none,  nor 
doe  any  acte  peculiarly  pertaining  to  presbyters.  Whereby,  it  is  most 
evident  that  that  wherein  a  bishoppe  excelleth  a  presbyter  is  net  a 
distinct  power  or  order,  but  an  eminencie  and  dignity  only,  specially 
yeelded  to  one  above  all  the  rest  of  that  same  ranke  for  order  sake, 
and  to  preserve  the  unitie  and  peace  of  the  Church."  If  this  opinion, 
however,  be  well  founded,  (and  he  was  one  of  the  most  learned  writers 
on  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  polity  which  the  Church  of  England 
ever  produced,)  the  conduct  of  Spottiswoode,  Lamb,  and  Hamilton, 
in  ordaining  presbyters  after  they  came  from  London,  on  this  ground 
also,  must  have  been  illegal,  and  the  orders  of  the  whole  Episcopalian 
presbyters  in  Scotland  must  have  been  invalid. 

t  This  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  days  of  Archbishop  Parker.  Consult  his 
account  of  "  the  Manor  how  the  Church  of  England  is  administered 
and  governed,"  at  the  end  of  Lady  Bacon's  English  Translation  of 
Jewel's  Apology,  and  Strype's  Parker,  Append,  to  book  ii.  p.  60. 
"  Amongst  us  here  in  England,"  says  he,  "no  man  is  called  or  pre- 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


261 


principle,  you  might  admit  a  man  to  the  communion 
who  had  neither  been  baptized  nor  confirmed;  and 
you  might  even  consecrate  him  at  once  to  be  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  and  Primate  of  all  England, 
though  he  had  never  received  the  first  of  these  ordi- 
nances; or  you  might  raise  him  to  the  very  Popedom, 
and  make  him  the  visible  head  of  the  Universal 
Church.  As  this,  however,  is  so  obviously  absurd, 
that  it  would  not  be  tolerated  for  a  moment,  what 
was  done  in  the  consecration  of  Spottiswoode  and 
his  brethren,  unless  you  admit  the  validity  of  Pres- 
byterian ordination,  must  have  been  equally  absurd, 
and  could  communicate  nothing  of  Episcopal  power. 
Every  thing  consequently  which  they  did  afterwards, 
when  they  consecrated  bishops,  priests  and  deacons, 
must  have  been  equally  invalid,  and  the  Scottish  Epis- 
copalians, whose  succession  was  destroyed  by  that 
fatal  step,  which  is  now  irretrievable,  cannot,  upon 
your  principles,  have  any  hope  of  salvation,  or  be 
entitled  to  the  character  of  a  Christian  Church. 

Nor  were  they  extricated  from  these  difficulties  at 
the  second  of  these  periods,  in  1661,  when  Sharp, 
Fairfoul,  Leighton  and  Hamilton  were  made  bishops; 
for  though  they  were  ordained  previously  to  be  dea- 
cons and  presbyters,  they  were  not  rebaptized ;  and 
three  of  them  had  only  Presbyterian  baptism,  while 
the  fourth  had  merely  that  baptism  which  a  clergy- 
man ordained  by  one  of  the  Scottish  prelates  of  1610, 
whose  orders  were  invalid,  was  able  to  perform.  If 
they  were  not  rebaptized,  however,  they  must  have 
remained  unbaptized  till  the  day  of  their  death, 
even  though  they  were  consecrated  to  be  bishops; 
and  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether  any  thing  which 
was  done  by  unbaptized  prelates  could  have  the 
smallest  efficacy,  according  to  your  principles,  and 
whether  orders  derived  from  men,  who,  according  to 
your  Catechism,  had  not  even  "been  made  members 
of  Christ,  children  of  God,  and  inheritors  of  the  king- 

ferred  to  be  a  bishop,  except  he  have  first  received  the  orders  of  priest- 
hood, and  he  be  well  liable  to  instruct  al  the  people  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures." 


262 


LETTERS  ON 


dom  of  heaven,"  in  the  way  which  he  has  appointed, 
could  keep  up  in  that  Church,  which  is  beginning  to 
boast  of  its  uninterrupted  apostolical  diocesan  succes- 
sion, that  important  privilege.  Besides,  Sydserf,  the 
Bishop  of  Galloway,  to  which  See  Hamilton  was  or- 
dained on  the  15th  December  1661,  in  the  abbey 
Church  of  Westminster,  was  then  living,  and  was 
not  translated  to  Orkney  till  the  14th  November 
1662:  And  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  canons  both  of 
the  English  and  Scottish  Episcopalians  that  there 
should  be  tivo  bishops  at  the  same  time  in  one  dio- 
cese, the  ordination  of  Hamilton  was  illegal;  and  as 
he  was  never  reordained,  every  thing  which  he  did 
must  have  been  irregular,  and  must  have  damaged 
the  succession.*    It  was  still  further  injured,  or  rather 

*  "  The  olde  canons  and  auncient  fathers,"  said  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift  to  Cartwright,  in  the  Defense  of  his  Answere  to  the  Admonition, 
"  doe  testifie,  that  in  one  citie  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop.  Chry  sos- 
tome  tolde  Siricius  that  one  citie  must  have  but  one  bishop,  as  we  reade, 
lib.  vi.  cap.22,  ofSocrates.  Neytherare  you  able  to  shewe  from  Christe's 
time,  that  ever  there  was  allowed  to  be  two  bishops  in  one  citie." 

"Cornelius,"  says  Cyprian,  in  his  52d,  or  according  to  others,  his 
55th  Epistle,  "  was  made  bishop  by  the  testimony  of  the  clergy  and 
the  suffrages  of  the  people,  when  no  one  had  been  ordained  before 
him,  and  the  Episcopal  chair  was  empty.  Whoever  after  that  pre- 
tends to  be  bishop  has  not  the  ordination  of  the  Church,  whatever  he 
may  boast,  or  assume  to  himself.  There  cannot  be  a  second  bishop 
after  the  first,  and,  therefore,  whoever  is  made  a  bishop  after  the  first, 
is  not  a  second  bishop,  but  no  bishop  at  all." 

"The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  for  the  same  reason,"  says 
Bower,  in  his  History  of  the  Popes,  vol.  ii.  p  373,  "  pronounced  all 
whom  Meletius  of  Lycopolis  had  ordained  in  Egypt,  for  Sees  that 
were  not  vacant  at  the  time  of  their  consecration,  to  be  no  bishops,  and 
at  the  same  time  issued  a  decree,  commanding  them  to  be  reordained 
before  they  were  admitted  to  serve  as  bishops  in  the  Catholic  Church." 
Socrates,  lib.  i.  cap.  9;  Theodoret,  lib.  i.  cap.  9.  "  In  like  manner, 
the  fathers  of  the  Second  Oecumenical  Council,  (that  of  Constanti- 
nople,) would  not  admit  of  the  ordination  of  Maximus,  the  Cynic, 
though  he  had  been  ordained  by  seven  bishops,  but  unanimously  de- 
clared that  he  was  no  bishop;  that  he  never  should  be  a  bishop;  that 
the  clerks  ordained  by  him  should  in  no  degree  whatever  be  received 
as  true  clerks ;  all  that  had  been  done  to  him,  or  by  him,  being  absolutely 
void  and  null,  because  he  had  intruded  himself  into  a  See,  that 
of  Constantinople,  legally  filled  by  another,  by  Nectarius."  As 
Hamilton,  then,  was  intruded  into  the  See  of  Galloway,  while 
it  was  held  by  Sydserf,  his  ordination  must  have  been  null  and 
void  ;  the  bishops  and  clerks  whom  he  ordained  could  not  be  true 
bishops  or  clerks  ;  all  that  was  done  to  him,  or  by  him,  as  he  was 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


263 


completely  destroyed,  when  Sharp  came  from  London ; 
for  with  the  assistance  of  Fairfonl  and  Hamilton,  he 
consecrated  George  Halibnrton,  one  of  the  ministers 
of  Perth,  to  the  See  of  Dunkeld;  Murdoch  Mackenzie, 
minister  .of  Elgin,  who  had  taken  the  covenant  against 
prelacy  ten  times,  or,  according  to  others,  fourteen 
times*  to  the  diocese  of  Moray;  David  Strachan, 
Middleton's  minister  at  Fettercairn, to  Brechin;  John 
Paterson,  minister  at  Aberdeen,  to  Ross;  and  Robert 
Wallace,  minister  of  Barnwell,  to  the  diocese  of  the 
Isles;  without  rebaptizing  them,  or  making  them  dea- 
cons and  presbyters,  though  all  of  them,  except  Mac- 
kenzie, had  only  Presbyterian  baptism  and  orders. 
And  yet  it  is  from  these  eight  bishops,  who  were  never 
baptized,  and  who,  according  to  your  doctrine,  could 
not  be  Christians ;  and  from  a  ninth,  whose  baptism 
was  equally  irregular,  and  who  never  passed  through 
the  previous  orders,  which  were  essential  to  their 
legal  elevation  to  the  episcopate,  that  the  Scottish 
Episcopalians  in  the  present  day  derive  their  orders, 
the  worth  of  which,  if  your  principles  be  true,  I  shall 
leave  you  to  determine.  We  know,  too,  that  these 
prelates  admitted  a  number  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy 
into  the  communion  of  that  Church,  after  it  was  estab- 
lished by  the  Government,  and  allowed  them  to  retain 
their  parishes  without  either  rebaptizing  or  reordain- 
ing  them,  merely  upon  their  agreeing  to  be  collated, 
and  subscribing  such  a  declaration  as  the  following, 
which  was  all  that  Sharp  and  others  required  in  their 
dioceses:  "Lykas  also  I,  the  said  Mr.  James  (Ramsay) 
doe  declair,  that  I  doe  owne  and  submit  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  by  archbishops  and 
bishops,  as  the  same  is  now  settled  by  la  we.  In  wh- 
iles of  the  premises,  I  have  sub1  the  same  with  my 
hand  at  Edinburgh,  the      day  of  September  1662."t 

never  reordained,  must  have  been  invalid,  and  the  injury  which  he 
did  to  the  alleged  apostolical  succession  among  the  Scottish  Episco- 
palians must  have  been  incalculable,  and  is  now  irretrievable. 

*  Wodrow's  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  129,  edit.  1829. 

t  MS.  Register  of  the  Collations  and  Licences  granted  by  Arch- 
bishop Sharp  and  other  bishops,  from  1662  till  1675.  Both  the  Col- 
lations and  Licenses  together  amount  to  about  two  hundred. 


264 


LETTERS  ON 


And  Charles  himself,  in  his  Letter  to  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil in  1669,  states  expressly,  that  "such  ministers  as 
shall  take  collation  from  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  and 
keep  presbyteries  and  synods,  may  be  warranted  to 
lift  their  stipends  as  other  ministers  of  the  kingdom." 
What  was  the  number  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy 
who  accepted  these  terms  and  conformed  to  Episco- 
pacy throughout  the  different  dioceses  I  have  not  ex- 
actly ascertained,  but  they  are  represented  by  the  late 
Bishop  Walker  of  Edinburgh  as  considerable;  and 
he  takes  credit  to  the  bishops  for  receiving  them  in  this 
way  without  ordination,  though  it  overthrows  the  doc- 
trine of  an  uninterrupted  apostolical  diocesan  succes- 
sion, which  is  maintained  by  you  and  many  Scottish 
Episcopalians,  as  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Church.  "  The  Archdean  or  archdeacon  of  St. 
Andrews,  whose  name  was  Waddel,  or  Weddel,"  says 
he,  "  was  a  Presbyterian  minister  before  the  Restora- 
ration.  He  readily  conformed  to  the  Episcopal  Church, 
but  he  would  not  submit  to  be  episcopally  ordained, 
which  in  England  would  have  been  indispensable. 
Well,  Avith  all  the  bigotry  with  which  our  poor  Church 
has  at  every  period  been  accused,  his  scruples,  and 
the  scruples  of  many  in  similar  circumstances,  were 
respected,  and  his  clerical  character  teas  recognised 
without  that  episcopal  ordination,  which,  by  Epis- 
copalians universally,  is  considered  as  essential."* 
Now,  if  this  was  really  the  case,  and  if  some  of  the 
individuals  afterwards  became  bishops,  and  rose  to 
other  places  of  power  and  honour,  and  if,  as  Bishop 
Burnet  declares,  "  no  bishop  in  Scotland,  during  his 
stay  in  that  kingdom,  ever  did  so  much  as  desire  any 
of  the  presbyters  [i.  e.  Presbyterian  ministers)  to  be 
reordained,"t  what  must  we  think  of  a  number  of 

*  Sermon  in  1831,  in  behalf  of  the  Gaelic  Episcopal  Society, 
t  Bisbop  of  Sarum's  Vindication,  p.  84,  85. 

We  have  seen  already,  p.  18,  note,  that  a  similar  course  was  par- 
sued  by  Cranmer  towards  Peter  Alexander,  and  other  foreign  Pres- 
byterian ministers,  when  they  were  willing  to  join  the  Church  of 
England.  And,  says  Bishop  Cosins,  one  of  the  keenest  Episcopalians, 
in  his  letter  to  Cardel,  "  If  at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in 
these  French  Churches  came  to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


265 


the  ministers  and  members  of  his  Church  in  the  pre- 
sent day,  who  tell  us  that  an  unbroken  Episcopalian 
succession  is  to  be  found  in  their  Church,  and  that  the 
Established  Church  which  is  Presbyterian  in  its  go- 
vernment is  in  a  state  of  schism  ? 

And  as  the  succession  is  not  to  be  discovered  among 
the  Scottish  Episcopalians  at  either  of  these  periods,  so 
it  certainly  did  not  commence  at  the  time  of  the  Revo- 
lution, when  Prelacy  was  overthrown,  and  when,  a 
few  years  afterwards,  Dr.  Ross  ordained  two  or  three 
bishops  ivithont  flocks  or  dioceses,  merely  "  to  con- 
tinue the  episcopal  succession;"  or,  as  Dr.  Campbell 
expresses  it,  made  them  "  the  depositaries  of  no  de- 
posit, commanded  them  to  be  diligent  in  doing  no 
work,  vigilant  in  the  oversight  of  no  flock,  in  teaching 
and  governing  no  people,  and  presiding  in  no  church."* 
This  strange  proceeding  was  a  flagrant  violation  of 
the  sixth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  where 
six  hundred  and  thirty  bishops  were  present,  which 
forbids  the  giving  of  orders  at  large,  "  or  without  a 
title,"  or  as  it  is  denominated,  "  a  ministerium  va- 
gum."  And  it  was  contrary  not  only  to  the  thirty- 
third  canon  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  to  the 
seventh  canon  of  their  own  Church,  in  which  they 
say,  (and  the  words  are  printed  in  italics,)  the  candi- 
date for  holy  orders  must  "  have  a  particular  place 
or  charge  assigned  to  him  where  he  may  use  or  ex- 
ercise his  function,"  and  without  it  "  no  person  shall 
be  advanced  to  the  order  of  the  priesthood  in  this 
Church." 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  though  the  succession  had 

receive  a  public  charge  or  cure  of  souls  amongst  us  in  tbc  Church  of 
England,  (as  I  have  known  some  of  Ihem  to  have  done  of  late,  and 
can  instance  in  many  other  before  my  time,)  our  bishops  did  not  re- 
ordain  him  before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must 
have  done  if  his  former  ordination  in  France  had  been  void." 

*  It  is  remarked  in  a  very  able  article  on  Scottish  Prelacy  in  the 
Presbyterian  Review,  No.  53,  p.  182,  that  Dr.  Campbell  in  this  pas- 
sage did  little  more  than  repeat  these  words  of  Optatus,  lib.  ii.  "  A 
son  without  a  lather,  an  apprentice  without  a  master,  a  scholar  with- 
out a  teacher,  a  tenant  without  a  house,  a  guest  without  a  host,  a 
shepherd  without  a  flock;  equally  absurd  was  a  bishop  without 
people." 


266 


LETTERS  ON 


remained  unbroken  till  the  ordination  of  these  bishops, 
it  must  have  been  completely  destroyed,  for  the  orders 
which  they  received  having  been  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  whole  of  these  canons,  were  utterly  invalid. 

Nor  have  these  evils  been  remedied  at  any  subse- 
quent period,  but  if  the  following  statement  be  borne 
out  by  facts,  (and  it  is  corroborated  certainly  by  the 
strongest  evidence,)  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a 
religious  society,  assuming  to  itself  the  name  of  a 
Christian  Church,  and  according  to  your  principles, 
the  only  Church  (the  Roman  Catholic  excepted)  in 
this  part  of  the  island,  in  a  more  deplorable  state  as 
to  the  orders  of  its  ministers,  the  efficacy  of  its  sacra- 
ments, and  the  revealed  and  covenanted  right  of  its 
members  to  the  blessings  of  salvation,  than  that  of  the 
Scottish  Episcopalians.  In  the  year  1718,  a  Mr. 
Gadderer  came  from  England,  representing  himself 
as  a  bishop,  and  attempted  to  introduce  among  them 
some  important  innovations,  namely,  prayers  for  the 
dead,  mixing  water  with  wine  in  the  sacramental 
cup,  and  praying  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  the  bread  and  the  cup,  in  virtue  of  which  de- 
scent, he  said,  they  become  "  the  spiritual  and  life- 
giving  body  and  blood  "  the  priest  having,  previously 
to  his  prayer  for  the  descent,  offered  up  the  bread  and 
cup  to  God  the  Father,  as  the  symbols  of  the  sacrifice 
of  our  Saviour's  body  and  blood,  once  offered  up  by 
him.  The  College  of  Bishops  resisted  these  innova- 
tions, denominated  afterwards  the  usages,  and  refused 
to  recognise  him.  But  upon  the  death  of  Dr.  Ross  he 
prevailed  with  them  to  receive  him;  and  in  1727  he 
persuaded  Bishop  Cant,  who  was  in  his  dotage,  and 
bribed  Bishop  Millar,  who  too  was  very  old,  to  assist 
him  in  ordaining  Rattray  and  Dunbar,  two  presbyters, 
who  approved  of  the  usages,  and  raised  them  to  the 
episcopate.*     Their  proceedings  were  immediately 

*  "  Mr.  Gadderer,"  says  the  author  of  a  short  narrative  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland,  fiom  the  year  1718  to  1743,  "having 
contracted  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Thomas  Rattray  of 
Craighall,  and  Mr.  William  Dunhar  at  Cruden,  persons  as  fond  as 
himself  of  his  corrupt  doctrines,  encouraged  them  to  aspire  to  the 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


267 


condemned  by  the  college,  who  declared  Rattray  and 
Dunbar  not  to  be  bishops,  and  suspended  Bishop  Mil- 
lar; but  the  latter  disregarding  their  sentence,  soon 
afterwards  ordained  Bishop  Keith,  another  of  the 
Usagers.  The  college  having  died  out  without  or- 
daining any  successors,  "  the  present  bishops,"  as  the 
late  Bishop  Skinner  remarks,  (Ecc.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p. 
468,)  "  derive  their,  succession  from  these  three" 
Usage  bishops,  "  Rattray,  Keith  and  Dunbar."  And 
in  reference  to  them  and  to  Bishop  Millar,  I  beg  to 
quote,  first,  the  statement  of  Mr.  Sievwright,  a  re- 
episcopate,  that  a  party  might  be  formed  in  opposition  to  the  college 
for  promoting  this  doctrine  more  effectually  by  their  own  authority 
as  bishops.  To  facilitate  the  promotion  of  these  two  men  no  pains 
was  spared  ;  among  others  money  was  offered  first  to  Bishop  Ross  at 
Cupar  of  Fife,  upon  condition  that  he  would  assist  in  their  consecra- 
tion, and  upon  his  refusing,  next  to  Bishop  Millar  at  Leith,  who  was 
prevailed  upon  to  accept  the  bribe;  and  accordingly,  with  the  assis- 
tance of  Bishop  Cant  in  Edinburgh,  (both  of  them  old  men,)  and  Mr. 
Gaddcrcr,  consecrated  these  gentlemen,  without  the  knowledge  or 
consent  of  the  other  bishops,  six  in  number,  viz.  Bishops  Alexander 
Duncan,  David  Frecbairn,  James  Ross,  John  Auchterlonic,  David 
Ranken  and  John  Gillan.  This  happened  in  1727;  and  immediately 
after,  these  six  suspended  Millar  upon  account  of  the  unworthy  part 
he  had  acted  previous  to  the  irregular  consecration  of  tbese  Usagers. 
After  this  there  were  two  different  sets  of  bishops  in  Scotland,  viz. 
the  Usage  party.  Cant,  Millar,  Gadderer,  Rattray  and  Dunbar,  and 
the  six  above-mentioned  members  of  the  college.  The  former  were 
indefatigable  in  undermining  the  interest  of  the  latter.  Mr.  Keith, 
another  of  the  Usage  party,  was  consecrated  by  Millar  while  he  was 
under  suspension.  The  sentence  of  suspension  agaitist  Bishop  Mil- 
lar was  issued  out  in  June  1727,  and  he  died  under  it  in  October 
next." 

Gadderer's  orders  were  invalid.  He  was  ordained  at  London  in 
1712  by  Dr.  Hickes,  and  two  Scottish  bishops,  Falconer  and  Camp- 
bell. The  two  latter  had  no  authority  according  to  the  canons  to 
confer  orders  in  England,  and  consequently  the  ordination  of  Gad- 
derer was  schismatical.  And  with  regard  to  Hickes,  who  was  or- 
daincd  by  White,  I  loyd  and  Turner,  three  nonjuror  bishops,  who 
had  been  deprived  of  their  Sees,  even  Mr.  Perceval  says,  Under 
what  plea  consecration  pi  rformcd  in  the  province  of  Canterbury, 
without  consultation  or  approval  of  the  bishops  of  the  province,  whose 
legitimate  institution  was  never  called  in  question,  and  without  the 
approval  of  the  now  existing  metropolitan,  can  be  regarded  otherwise 
than  irregular  and  schismatical,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive."  Papers, 
vol.  ii.  p.  223. 

Rattray,  who  was  a  man  of  property,  and  was  anxious  to  be  made 
a  bishop,  furnished  the  bribe  which  was  given  to  .Millar. 


268 


LETTERS  ON 


spectable  Episcopal  minister,  and  next  the  deed  of 
the  college  respecting  the  ordination  of  Messrs.  Rat- 
tray and  Dunbar,  and  their  sentence  suspending 
Bishop  Millar. 

"  As  Messrs.  Rattray,  Dunbar  and  Leith,"  says  Mr. 
Sievwright,  "never  had  regular  and  canonical  orders, 
(the  promotion  of  the  livo  first  having  been  declared 
most  irregular  and  uncunonical,)  in  the  judgment  of 
the  majority,  six  orderly  against  the  three  disorderly 
of  the  bishops  in  Scotland  at  that  time,  and  the  pro- 
motion of  this  last  no  less  so  of  consequence,  as  hav- 
ing been  carried  on  by  Bishop  Millar  and  his  party, 
when  he  the  said  Bishop  Millar  was  under  suspension; 
and  as,  for  this  reason,  these  men's  pretension  to  the 
title  and  jurisdiction  of  bishops  were  null  and  void, 
according  to  the  express  words  of  the  sentence  issued 
out  against  them  by  the  majority  foresaid,  which  sen- 
tence stands  unrepealed  to  this  day,  and  attested  by 
the  subscriptions  of  Bishops  Duncan,  Freebairn,  Ross, 
Auchterlonie,  Ranken  and  Gillan,  who  denounced  it, 
therefore  the  pretensions  of  the  successors  in  office  of 
Messrs  Rattray,  Dunbar  and  Keith,  whereby  they 
claim  the  title  of  bishop  and  episcopal  jurisdiction,  as 
being  by  them,  and  them  alone,  appointed  and  pro- 
moted to  their  imaginary  episcopate,  must  be  esteemed 
(upon  all  church  principles)  equally  void  and  null;  it 
being  impossible  that  any  can  communicate  more  per- 
fect orders,  or  claims  to  episcopal  jurisdiction,  than 
they  themselves  possess."* 

Extract  from  the  original  subscribed  Deed,  above 
referred  to. 

"  We,  the  majority  of  the  College  of  Bishops,  con- 
veened  at  Edinburgh,  have  thought  ourselves  obliged 
in  conscience  to  declare,  and  by  these  presents  do 
declare  the  said  election  to  be  null  and  void,  and  their 

*  Principles,  Political  and  Religious,  by  Norman  Sievwright,  A.  M 
Presbyter  of  the  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established,  and  Minister  to  the  authorised  Episcopal  Congregation 
in  Brechin.    Edin.  1767,  p.  301,  302. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


269 


consecrations  most  irregular  and  uncanonical,  and  that 
the  said  Dr.  Rattray  and  Mr.  Dunbar  are  no  bishops 
of  this  Church,  and  ought  to  claim  no  power  or  juris- 
diction as  such.  Wherefor  we  discharge  all  the  clergy 
from  owning  or  submitting  themselves  to  them,  or 
giving  them  any  obedience  as  bishops  of  this  Church, 
&c. ;  and  appoint  this  to  be  intimated.  Given  at 
Edinburgh,  the  29th  of  June  1727,  and  subscribed 
by  us. 

Jo.  AlTCHTERLONIE,  Bishop. 

Da.  Ranken,  Bp. 
Jo.  Gillan,  Bishop. 
Alex.  Duncan,  Preses. 
David  Freebairn,  Bishop. 
Ja.  Ross,  Bpp." 

Extract  from  Sentence  of  Suspension  on  Bishop 
Millar. 

r 

"June  28,  1727.  The  College  of  Bishops  being 
met,  &c,  find  themselves  obliged,  for  recovering  the 
peace  and  unity  of  this  Church,  so  miserably  violated 
and  broken  by  him,  to  suspend,  and  by  these  presents 
do  suspend  the  said  Bishop  Arthur  Millar  from  the 
exercise  of  any  part  of  the  episcopal  office  within  this 
National  Church,  and  particularly  within  the  diocese 
of  Edinburgh,  to  which  we  have  declared  he  has  no 
right  or  title,  aye  and  while  he  give  satisfaction  to  our 
reasonable  overtures  formerly  made  to  him,  both  by 
word  and  writ;  and  appoint  these  presents  to  be 
intimated  to  the  said  Bp.  Arthur  Millar,  and  to  the 
presbyters  of  the  diocese  of  Edinburgh,  that  none 
concerned  may  pretend  ignorance."* 

I  leave  these  documents,  the  genuineness  of  which 
will  scarcely,  I  presume,  be  questioned  by  any  one,  to 
speak  for  themselves,  and  I  would  like  to  know 
whether  you  consider  the  orders  of  the  present  bishops 
of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  which  have  been  derived 
from  those  who  had  no  right  to  bestow  them,  as  good 

*  Extracted  from  a  MS.  Collection  of  Holograph  Documents  in 
the  possession  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  M't'rie,  Edinburgh. 


270 


LETTERS  ON 


and  valid,  and  whether  you  regard  their  Church  as  a 
Christian  Church,  and  its  members  as  having  a  cove- 
nanted title  to  salvation.  You  will  hardly,  I  appre- 
hend, venture  to  do  this;  and  if  the  orders  of  their 
bishops  are  utterly  irregular,  and  the  ministrations  of 
their  clergy  are  consequently  destitute  of  the  smallest 
efficacy, Mr.  Doddsworth  and  Mr.  Gladstone, and  those 
of  your  bishops  who  are  patronising  them  so  zealously 
against  the  Scottish  Establishment,  would  confer  on 
them  a  greater  and  more  important  favour,  than  the 
grants  which  they  have  procured  for  them  from  the 
Society  for  propagating  Christian  Knowledge,  if  they 
could  assist  them  in  recovering  the  apostolic  succes- 
sion, and  could  restore  them  to  the  character  of  a 
Christian  Church. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary,  after  facts  like  these,  to 
inquire  whether  none  of  them,  though  baptized  in 
infancy  by  Presbyterian  Dissenters,  or  ministers  of 
the  Establishment,  and  never  rebaptized,  have  not 
afterwards,  when  admitted  into  the  communion  of 
that  Church,  been  made  presbyters  and  bishops,  while, 
according  to  your  principles,  they  are  not  even  Chris- 
tians, and  whether  instances  of  the  kind  are  not  to  be 
found  among  her  prelates  in  the  present  day.  Nay, 
I  might  further  inquire,  whether  there  are  not  some 
among  her  presbyters,  who  not  only  have  nothing 
more  than  Presbyterian  baptism,  but  were  Presby- 
terian elders,  and  who,  though  never  rebaptized,  are 
permitted  to  baptize  and  administer  the  Eucharist  to 
the  members  of  their  congregations,  and  who,  though 
the  orders  of  her  bishops  were  regular  and  canonical, 
would  injure  the  succession.  I  do  not  positively  affirm 
that  there  are  such  instances,  but  only  inquire  whether 
it  is  not  actually  the  case  ;  and  if  it  should  turn  out  to 
be  so,  it  only  serves  to  illustrate  the  extreme  inconsis- 
tency and  folly  of  those,  who  though  they  no  longer 
venture  to  repeat  the  cry  of  no  bishop,  no  king,* 

*  It  is  curious  that  Infidels  and  Papists  have  hroughtthc  very  same 
objection  against  Protestantism  in  general,  which  Episcopalians  in 
the  days  of  the  Stuarts  used  to  advance  against  Presbyteriunism, 
namely,  that  it  is  unfavourable  to  monarchy.    See  in  proof  of  this, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


271 


repeat  another  no  less  revolting  to  the  feelings  of 
every  enlightened  Christian,  no  bishop,  no  church,  no 
ministry,  no  sacraments,  and  no  hope  of  salvation. 
I  am,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

with  an  excellent  refutation  of  Montesquieu,  who  recommends  Popery 
as  preferable  to  it  in  this  respect,  because  the  Pope  is  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal monarch,  Froman's  Disputatio  de  Protestantium  Religione  regali 
civitatis  generi  accoinmodata,  torn.  ii.  of  his  Dissertations,  and  the 
Nova  Acta  Ilistor.  Eccles.  Vinar.  vol.  i.  p.  5,  where  there  is  an  admir- 
able Lettre  d'un  Patriote  sur  la  tolerance  civile  des  Protestans  de 
France,  et  sur  les  avantages  qui  en  rcsulteroient  pour  lc  Royaume, 
1756. 

The  testimony  which  Lord  Bacon  bears  to  the  loyalty  of  Presby- 
terians in  his  day,  and  the  injuries  which  they  sustained,  is  very 
valuable.  "The  wrongs  of  them  which  are  possessed  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  towards  the  other,"  says  he,  in  his  Treatise  of 
Church  Controversies,  vol.  iv.  of  his  Works,  p.  427,  "  may  hardly  be 
dissembled  and  excused.  They  have  charged  them  as  though  they 
denied  tribute  to  Caesar,  and  withdrew  from  the  civil  magistrate  the 
obedience  which  they  have  ever  performed,  and  taught.  They  have 
sorted  and  coupled  them  with  the  lamily  of  love,  whose  heresies  they 
have  laboured  to  destroy  and  confute.  They  have  been  swift  of  credit 
to  receive  accusations  against  them,  from  those  that  hare  quarrelled 
with  them  hut  for  speaking  against  sin  and  vice.  Their  accusations 
and  inquisitions  have  been  strict,  swearing  men  to  blanks  and  gene- 
ralities, not  included  within  compass  of  matter  certain  which  the 
party  who  is  to  take  the  oath  may  comprehend,  which  is  a  thing 
captious  and  strainable."  "  And  as  for  the  easy  silencing  them  in 
such  great  scarcity  of  preachers,  it  is  to  punish  the  people  and  not 
them.''' 


272 


LETTER  XVIL 

The  Church  of  Denmark,  as  its  first  superintendents  were  only  preshyters, 
and  after  the  Reformation  received  imposition  of  hands  only  from  Bugen- 
hagen,  a  single  Lutheran  presbyter,  without  the  succession,  and  upon  the 
principles  of  Dr.  Pusey,  not  a  Christian  Church. — The  same,  too,  the  con- 
dition of  the  Church  of  Sweden,  and  of  all  the  foreign  Protestant 
Churches  which  have  only  superintendents. — Superintendents  both  among 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  when  appointed  to  their  office  not  ordained 
anew,  but  appointed  merely  the  chairmen  or  moderators  of  presbyters,  by 
whom  they  may  be  deposed. — Their  Churches,  of  course,  not  Christian 
Churches. — Account  of  the  Ancient  Scottish  superintendents,  whose  office 
is  misrepresented  by  Episcopalians. — TheChurch  of  Prussia  not  a  Church, 
nor  the  Protestant  Churches  of  France,  Geneva,  Switzerland,  Holland, 
America  and  Scotland. — The  Presbyterians  in  Ireland  and  Great  Britain, 
with  the  Methodists  and  Independents,  not  Churches,  and  their  members 
without  any  covenanted  title  to  salvation. — The  succession  destroyed  in 
the  Church  of  Home. — Pagans  baptized  some  who  became  ministers — lay- 
men ordained  to  be  bishops — bishops  often  ordained  to  Sees  which  were 
not  vacant — This  the  case  with  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo. 

Reverend  Sir, — If  the  condition  of  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Ireland,  as  well  of  the  Scottish  Episco- 
palians, according  to  your  principles,  be  exceedingly 
alarming,  because  they  have  lost  the  uninterrupted 
apostolic  succession,  the  rest  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
palian Churches  are  in  a  similar  state,  and  none  of 
their  ministers,  any  more  than  yours,  can  have  the 
smallest  confidence  in  the  validity  of  their  orders,  nor 
the  holiest  of  their  members  any  hope  of  being  received 
into  the  abodes  of  blessedness.  Such  must  be  the 
condition  of  the  Church  of  Denmark,  for,  as  is  stated 
by  Gerdesius,  Messenius  and  Des  Roches, and  acknow- 
ledged by  King,  a  zealous  Episcopalian,  the  whole  of 
the  bishops  were  deprived  at  the  Reformation,  and 
were  succeeded  by  ministers  under  the  name  of  Super- 
intendents, who  had  previously  been  only  priests  or 
deacons.  "  But  when  the  Popish  bishops,"  says  the 
first  of  these  writers,  "  had  been  vanquished,  and 
expelled  from  their  Sees,  the  King  took  care  that  the 
very  same  year  there  should  be  ordained  in  their  room 
seven  others,  and  these  evangelical  ministers,  which 
was  performed  by  the  same  Pomeranian.  They  were 
enjoined  to  attend  to  the  churches,  and  to  watch  over 
their  affairs,  and  were  called  superintendents  rather 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


273 


than  bishops.  The  following  were  those  who  were 
thus  ordained:  Peter  Palladius,  who  was  appointed 
superintendent  or  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Zealand; 
Francis  Wormordus,  a  Carmelite  of  Elsineur,  and  a 
minister,  and  Professor  of  Theology  at  Malmoe,  of 
the  Scanic  diocese;  George  Fiburg,  a  minister  of 
Copenhagen,  of  the  Fionic  diocese;  John  Vandal,  a 
reader  of  Hatterslebe,  of  the  Ripensian  diocese;  Mat- 
thias Langius,  a  Radnensian  minister,  of  the  Arhusian 
diocese;  James  Scaningius,  minister  of  Fiburgb,  of 
the  diocese;  and  Peter  Thomas,  minister  of  Torn, 
of  the  Alburgensian  diocese."*  And  as  such  was  the 
rank  of  the  first  Danish  superintendents,  prior  to  their 
elevation  to  their  new  dignity,  so  the  person  who  or- 
dained them  was  the  celebrated  Bugenhagen,  who, 
according  to  Moreri,  was  only  a  presbyter  before  his 
conversion  to  Protestantism/!"  and  who,  as  is  mentioned 
by  Seckendorf,t  had  been  appointed  by  Luther,  who, 
too,  was  but  a  presbyter,  superintendent  of  Wittem- 
berg.  "  Bugenhagen,"  says  Professor  Mallet  in  his 
History  of  Denmark,  "  had  orders  to  choose  from  the 

*  "Cum  vero  ita  sedibus  suis  pulsi  motique  essent  Episcopi  Pon- 
tificii,"  &c.  Introduction  in  Histor.  Evangel.  Renovat.  torn.  iii.  p. 
111.  This  account  is  confirmed  by  the  second  of  these  authors,  in 
his  Schondia  Illustrata,  p.  71),  80,  though  there  is  a  trivial  difference 
as  to  some  of  the  names,  and  the  day  of  ordination.  "  Immediately 
after  this,"  says  he  of  Bugenhagen,  "  he  imparted  his  benediction  to 
the  first  seven  Superintendents  of  Denmark,  namely,  Franciscus 
Vormundus,  etc.  Inde  autem,  14  die  Augusti,"  Ace.  And  says  Des 
Roches,  in  his  Histoire  de  Dannemark,  torn.  v.  p.  132,  "  In  place  of 
the  seven  bishops  of  Denmark,  he  consecrated  in  the  Cathedral  Church 
of  Copenhagen  seven  divines,  by  order  of  the  King  and  the  Senate, 
under  the  title  of  superintendents,  though  they  still  retained  also  that  of 
bishops.  A  la  place  des  sept  Eveques  de  Dannemarc, —  consccra  dans 
l'Eglise  Cathedrale,"  &c.  "  In  Denmark,"  says  King  in  his  Miscel- 
lanies, p.  183,  "at  the  Reformation,  nunc  of  the  Popish  bishops  would 
embrace  it,  but  all,  because  of  their  errors,  were  deposed,  and  then 
the  new  superintendents,  according  to  Luther's  institution  in  Ger- 
many, were  ordained  by  Dr.  Bugenhagen  from  Wittenberg." 

f  See  his  Dictionnaire  Historique,  torn.  ii.  p.  361,  where  he  says, 
"Jean  Bugenhagen,  ministre  Protestante,  ne  le  24  Juin  1485  a  Wol- 
lin  dans  la  Pomeranie,  enseigna  dans  son  pays,  s'y  fit  pretre,  et  y  fut 
considere  comme  un  des  plus  savans  homines  de  son  temps."  After 
which  lie  gives  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  he  was  converted  to 
Luthcranism. 

t  Commentaries,  lib.  i.  sec.  45. 

18 


274 


LETTERS  ON 


Protestant  ministers,  seven  who  were  most  esteemed 
for  their  deportment  and  knowledge.  Of  these,  the  most 
distinguished  were  Palladius,  who  had  the  diocese  of 
Zeland,  and  Vormordus,  who  had  that  of  Scania;  the 
last  had  formerly  been  a  Carmelite  at  Elsineur,  and 
afterwards  a  theologian  at  Malmoe.  The  ceremony 
of  their  consecration  was  very  simple.  After  the 
singing  of  some  hymns,  Bngeuhagen  ordained  them 
with  imposition  of  hands,  and  addressed  to  them  a 
discourse,  pointing  out  to  them  the  nature  of  tneir 
duties."*  And  not  only  did  he  ordain  these  superin- 
tendents, but,  according  to  Clark.t  remained  in  the 
country  a  considerable  time,  and  ordained  many  min- 
isters. This  took  place  in  1537;  and  we  are  informed 
by  Molesworth,  that,  in  1692,  the  Church  of  Denmark 
was  still  governed  by  superintendents.  "There  are," 
says  he,  "six  superintendents  in  Denmark,  who  take 
it  very  kindly  to  be  called  Bishops,  and  my  Lord; 
viz.  one  in  Zealand,  one  in  Funen,  and  four  in  Jut- 
land. There  are  also  four  in  Norway.  These  have 
no  temporalities,  keep  no  ecclesiastical  courts,  have  no 
cathedrals  with  prebends,  canons,  deans,  sub-deans, 
&c,  but  are  only  primi  inter  pares,  having  the  rank 
above  the  inferior  clergy  of  4heir  provinces,  and  the 
inspection  into  their  doctrine  and  manners.";:  I  may 
add,  that  though  they  are  not  allowed,  like  Lords  of 
Parliament,  to  sit  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  king- 

*  "  Bugenhag  eut  ordre  de  choisir  partni  les  ministres  Protestans 
sept  des  plus  estimes  par  leur  moeurs  et  par  leur  savoir,"  &c.  torn, 
vi.  p  366. 

He  adds,  "  Apres  cela  Bugenhag  fut  charge  de  dresser  un  formu- 
laire  de  foi  et  de  discipline  suivant  lequel  les  ecclesiastiques  des  roy- 
aunies,  et  des  duches,  et  tous  ceus  a  qui  1'instruction  des  fideles  etoit 
cnnfie  dcvoient  se  regler.  Elle  iut  composee  en  Latin  sous  le  tilre 
d'Onhnnance  Ecclesiaslique,  apres  avoir  ete  liee  et  approuvee  par 
Luther  et  par  les  autres  Docteurs  les  plus  celebres  de  l'Universite  de 
Wittemberg,  le  Roi,  le  Senat,  les  etats  l'ayant  confirmee  la  firent 
iniprimer  en  Danois,  et  l'envoyerent  aux  Eglises  de  Norvege  et  de 
Sleswig,  pour  qu'elies  s'y  conformassent,  aussi  bien  que  ceiles  de 
Danneniark,  couime  elles  l'ont  toujours  (kit  depuis  jusqu'a.  ce  jour." 
P.  367,  368. 

t  Compare  his  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  p.  253. 

t  Molesworth's  Account  of  Denmark,  p.  231. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


275 


dom,  yet  that  privilege  is  conceded  to  two  of  them 
when  any  matter  comes  before  it  which  affects  the 
Church.  But  if  such  be  the  source  from  which  the 
superintendents  or  bishops  of  Denmark,  and  the 
inferior  clergy,  have  derived  their  orders  for  more 
than  three  hundred  years;  and  if  such  be  the  powers 
which  are  entrusted  to  them  by  the  State,  I  presume 
that  you,  and  those  Scottish  Episcopalians  who  hold 
your  principles,  are  prepared  to  consign  the  Protestant 
nation,  not  only  in  the  present  day,  but  through  all 
those  generations  which  have  succeeded  the  Reforma- 
tion, to  God's  uncovenanted  mercies,  and  to  say,  that, 
during  that  long  and  eventful  period,  they  have  been 
without  a  church  and  without  a  ministry,  and  that 
none  of  them  has  ever  been  possessed  of  a  title  to  the 
blessings  of  salvation. 

The  Swedish  Church  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, as  I  noticed  formerly,  is  said  by  Messenius  to 
have  had  four  superintendents,  with  an  arch-superin- 
tendent, who,  prior  to  his  ordination,  was  a  teacher  at 
Upsal.*  He  does  not  mention  by  whom  they  were 
ordained;  but  if,  as  is  probable,  it  was  by  Lutheran 
presbyters,  their  orders  would  labour  under  the  same 
defects  with  those  of  the  Danish  superintendents.  But, 
independently  of  this,  if  those  who  ordained  them 
derived  their  orders  from  Popish  bishops,  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  show  that  they  could  not  be  valid,  because 
the  succession  has  been  broken  in  that  apostate  Church. 
And  if  I  succeed  in  establishing  the  latter  position,  it 
follows,  that  upon  your  principles  the  Church  of 
Sweden  also  must  cease  to  be  regarded  as  a  Christian 
Church,  and  that  there  is  not  an  individual  in  that 
kingdom  who  can  have  any  hope  of  salvation. 

The  situation  of  those  Churches  which  are  governed 
by  superintendents  is  equally  deplorable,  for  they 
want  the  apostolical  diocesan  succession,  and  conse- 
quently cannot  be  recognised  as  Christian  Churches. 
No  new  ordination  takes  place  when  any  one  is 
appointed  a  superintendent.    In  the  tenth  regulation 


*  See  note,  p.  63-9. 


276 


LETTERS  OX 


of  the  Synodus  Xanensis,  it  is  said  that  "his  office 
ought  to  continue  from  synod  to  synod,  and  that  by 
the  decision  of  the  synod  he  shall  either  be  approved 
of  and  retained,  or  another  shall  be  chosen  and  appoint- 
ed."* And  though  his  presidency  now  is  more  per- 
manent, yet,  as  is  proved  by  Parker,  on  the  authority 
of  Zepper,  Hemingius  and  Herbrand,  both  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic  and  Lutheran  Churches,  where  such  an  officer 
exists,  he  is  only  the  chairman  or  moderator  of  the  pres- 
byters, the  primus  inter  pares,  has  no  such  authority 
over  them  as  an  English  prelate  has  over  his  presby- 
ters, and  ma}-  even  be  judged  and  deposed  by  them.t 
But  if  such  be  the  case,  how  dismal  in  your  opinion 
must  be  the  state  of  all  those  Protestant  Churches 

*  "  Munus  ejus  a  synodo  ad  synodum  durare  debet.  Et  juxta  sen- 
tentiam  synodi  aut  is  retinendus  et  approbandus,  aut  alius  eligendus 
et  constituendus  erit." 

f  In  his  Politeia  Eeclesiastica,  lib.  i.  cap.  28,  p.  79,  he  gives  the 
following  very  distinct  account  of  the  office  of  the  superintendent, 
from  Scultingius,  lib.  v.  fol.  14.  "  Nono,  tametsi  Lutherani  oranes, 
et  Calviniani  etiam  quidam,  ut  Zepperus,  Pastor  Herbonensis,  et  alii 
superintendentes  constituant,  tamen  isti  adeo  inter  se  dissident,  ut 
nemo  alteri  velit  cedere.  Decimo,  i?i/er  episcopum  et  sacerdolem  nihil 
omnino  statuunt  discriminis.  (They  make  no  difference  between  the 
po.ver  of  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter.)  Quod  ad  secundum,  authorita- 
tem  scilicet  in  reliquos  ministros  episcopum  Anglicanum  habere, 
inspectorem  Germanicum  non  item.  Hoc  ex  Gulielmo  Zeppero  liquet, 
qui  non  obstante  superintendentis  prasidentia  nullam  tamen  altero 
majorem  authoritatem  vel  in  verbi  et  sacramentorum  ministerio,  inque 
disciplinae  ecclesiasticae  usu  obtinere  dicit.  Addit  etiam  de  ipso 
stiperintendente,  (lib.  ii.  p.  322-324,)  quod  in  disciplinae  ipsius  ratione 
aliis  subjectus  sit,  quod  illius  praesidentiae  hoc  tantum  munus  sit 
quod  ecclesiae  suae  classi  operam  suam  plus  aliis  ministris  omnibus 
impendere  teneatur,  quod  causas  difficiliores  ad  consistoriorum  legiti- 
mam  cognitionem,  et  adjudicationem  devolvere  debeat,  quod  denique 
rninistri  ct  seniores  earum  ecclesiarum  quibus  praeest  de  eo  statuere, 
de  eo  judicare,  eum  punire,  imo  etiam  quemadmodum  eligebant  pri- 
mum,  ita  etiam  deponere  et  destituere  possent.  Id  ipsum  de  Luthe- 
ranis  6uperintendentibus  dicendum  est,  (p.  329 :)  Seniores  enim  ag- 
noscit  Nicolaus  Hemingius,  ita  episcopo  atque  superintendenti  suo, 
nihil  aliud  relinquit  nisi  illam  in  consistorio  quam  nuper  descripsimus 
praesidentiam,  id  quod  etiam  ab  ipsius  verbis  liquet  Ita  enim  inter 
caetera  habet,  qui  labore  et  donis  reliquos  antecedit,  is  ab  ecclesia 
praefertur,  non  ut  dominium  super  caeteros  exerceat,  sed  ut  alios 
regat  sapicntia  et  consilio.  In  testimonio  vero  Herbrandi  ab  eodem 
citato  apparet  istud  adhuc  luculentius,  disserta  enim  verba  Herbrandi 
allegat  in  quibus  dicit  superintendentem  nullam  in  caeteros  potesta- 
tem  habere.'" 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


277 


where  superintendents  merely  preside,  and  have  no 
greater  power  than  that  of  a  moderator  in  an  assem- 
bly of  presbyters,  and  may  even  be  deprived  of  their 
office  by  their  fellow-presbyters.  And  yet  this  is  the 
condition  of  the  Church  of  Prussia,  where  there  are 
no  diocesan  bishops,  though  the  King  is  reported,  in 
opposition  to  the  principles  of  his  illustrious  ancestor, 
whose  name  is  affixed  to  the  Articles  of  Smallcald,  to 
be  anxious  to  have  them,  but  who  must  apply  for  them 
elsewhere  than  to  the  prelates  of  your  Church,  or  of 
the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  if  he  would  establish  a  pure 
apostolical  succession.  And  it  is  the  condition  of  all 
those  other  Churches  which  resemble  it  in  their  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity,  none  of  which,  any  more  than 
the  Church  of  Prussia,  has  a  single  minister  whose 
orders,  upon  your  principles,  can  be  considered  as 
valid,  nor  a  single  member  who  has  a  covenanted  title 
to  the  blessings  of  salvation.* 

*  The  Church  of  Scotland,  for  a  short  time  after  the  Reformation, 
had  a  few  superintendents,  but  they  differed  from  those  of  the  con- 
tinental churches  in  this,  that  while  the  latter  was  intended  to  be  a 
permanent  class  of  ministers,  and  have  continued  for  several  hundred 
years,  the  Scottish  superintendents  were  intended  only  to  be  tern- 
porary,  and  were  to  cease  when  the  parishes  were  supplied  with 
pastors.  (See  First  Book  of  Discipline,  where  it  is  said  to  be  11  ex- 
pedient" merely,  "at  this  lime.'1'')  Episcopalians  have  represented 
them  as  a  kind  of  bishops.  But,  says  the  learned  author  of  the 
Apologeticall  Relation  of  the  particular  Sufferings  of  the  faithful  Min- 
isters and  Professours  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  since  August  lb'60, 
p.  13,  "so  cautious  were  the  Reformers,  that  they  would  not  acknow. 
ledge  those  to  be  bishops,  either  in  name  or  thing;  for  as  their  work 
was  extraordinary,  so  they  gave  them  an  extraordinary  name.  They 
would  not  suffer  any  who  had  been  bishops  before  in  time  of  Popery  to 
enjoy  the  place  and  power  of  a  superintendent,  least  the  nower  and 
place  might  be  abused,  and  at  length  degenerate  into  the  old  power  of 
prelates;  but  even  in  those  bounds  where  such  lived  did  appoint  others 
to  superintend,  as  Mr.  Pont  in  Galloway.  They  would  not  divide  the 
bounds  of  those  superintendents  according  to  the  prelats'  dioceses,  but 
after  another  manner.  They  divided  the  land  into  ten  parts,  having 
respect  to  the  edification  and  advantage  of  the  poor  people.  The 
superintendents  were  chosen  by  the  consent  of  the  whole  bounds 
which  they  were  to  visite.  They  were  not  consecrated,  but  only  set 
apart  to  that  worke  by  preaching  and  prayer,  as  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
order  prefixed  to  the  old  Psalme  books.  They  were  tryed  and  ex- 
amined by  the  ministers  of  these  bounds.  They  had  other  ministers 
conjunct  with  them  when  they  ordained  any.  Neither  had  they  sole 
power  of  excommunication ;  for  Reformed  Churches  had  power,  by 


278 


LETTERS  ON 


I  take  it  for  granted,  that  you  entertain  a  similar 
opinion  of  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  of  the  different  hodies  of  our  Presbyte- 
rian Dissenters,  as  well  as  of  the  Presbyterians  in  Ire- 
land, the  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Independents  and 
Baptists  in  England,  and  the  Presbyterians  in  France, 
Geneva,  Switzerland,  Holland  and  North  America, 
none  of  whose  ministers,  for  two  hundred  years,  can 
be  regarded,  upon  your  principles,  as  Christian  min- 
isters, and  of  none  of  whose  members,  however  pious, 
as  they  are  not  under  the  superintendence  of  diocesan 
bishops,  can  there  be  the  smallest  hope  that  they  shall 
be  received,  when  they  die,  into  the  abodes  of  bless- 
edness. But  while  such  are  your  views  of  the  state 
of  these  Churches,  there  is  another  Church  which  you 
are  disposed  to  consider  as  presenting  a  very  noble 
and  gratifying  contrast  to  these  schismatical  Churches, 
namely,  the  Church  of  Rome.  That  Church,  you 
allege,  from  which  you  received  the  succession,  still 
retains  it,  and  must  therefore  be  a  true  and  apostoli- 
cal Church.  Nay,  you  talk  of  it  in  terms  of  the  high- 
est veneration,  as  "your  Mother  Church,"  and  are 

the  Book  of  Discipline,  to  excommunicate  the  contumacious,  and  the 
Tractate  of  excommunication  prefixed  to  some  old  Psalme  books, 
shewcth  that  they  might  do  it  without  the  advyce  of  the  superinten- 
dent. They  were  subject  to  the  censure  of  the  ministers  and  elders  of 
the  province,  who  might  depose  them  in  some  cases.  Their  maine 
work  was  preaching-,  for  they  were  to  preach  at  the  least  thrice  every 
week.  They  had  their  own  particular  flocks  beside,  with  which  they 
stayed  always,  save  when  they  were  visiting  the  bounds  committed 
unto  them.  They  might  not  try  any  minister  thir  alone,  but  were 
commanded  to  have  the  neerest  reformed  Church,  and  other  learned 
men  conjunct,  by  an  act  of  the  Fourth  Nationall  Assembly,  an. 
1562.  They  might  not  transport  a  minister  without  the  consent  of 
the  synod,  as  is  clear  by  act  fourth  of  the  First  Nationall  Assembly, 
1562.  They  might  not  discusse  any  impoitant  question  thir  alone, 
as  is  clear  by  act  first  of  the  Ninth  Nationall  Synod,  an.  1564.  They 
were  at  liberty  to  appeal  from  them  to  the  Nationall  Synod,  as  is  clear 
by  act  fifth,  Assembly  sixth.  They  were  to  be  subject  to  the  As- 
sembly, as  is  clear  by  the  fourth  Assembly,  an.  1562.  They  never 
did  moderate  in  General  Assemblies,  unless  they  had  been  chosen  by 
vote.  Beside,  an.  1562,  at  the  Nationall  Assembly  there  were  some 
ministers  chosen  to  assist  the  five  superintendents,  (for  no  moe 
could  he  got  settled  for  want  of  maiutainancc,)  and  had  equally  power 
with  them,  and  were  commanded  to  give  accompt  of  their  diligence 
unto  every  Nationall  Synod,  and  there  to  lay  down  their  office." 


PIXSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


279 


anxious  to  induce  yonr  bishops  and  clergy  to  return 
within  its  pale.  Such  language,  you  are  aware, 
would  have  excited  the  surprise  of  your  early  re- 
formers, who  sealed  with  their  blood  their  attachment 
to  principles,  to  the  importance  of  which  you  and 
your  followers  seem  to  be  completely  insensible,  and 
who  have  left  in  their  writings  the  most  solemn  warn- 
ings against  that  very  step  which  you  so  strenuously 
recommend.  "0  heinous  blasphemy,  and  most  de- 
testable injury  against  Christ,"  said  Cranmer.  "  0 
wicked  abomination  in  the  temple  of  God !  0  pride 
intolerable  of  Anti-Christ,  and  most  manifest  token  of 
the  Son  of  perdition,  extolling  himself  above  God,  and 
with  Lucifer,  exalting  his  seat  and  power  above  the 
throne  of  God.  What  man  of  knowledge,  and  zeal 
to  God's  honour,  can  with  dry  eyes  see  this  in- 
jury to  Christ;  and  look  upon  the  state  of  religion, 
brought  in  by  the  Papists,  perceiving  the  true  sense 
ot  God's  word  subverted  by  false  glosses  of  man's  de- 
vising, the  true  Christian  religion  turned  into  certain 
hypocritical  and  superstilious  acts,  the  people  praying 
with  their  mouths  and  hearing  with  their  ears  they 
wist  not  what,  and  so  ignorant  in  God's  word,  that 
they  could  not  discern  hypocrisy  and  superstition  from 
true  and  sincere  religion."*  And  again  he  says,  "I 
know  how  Anti-Christ  hath  obscured  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  true  knowledge  of  his  word  ;  and  moved 
by  the  duty,  office,  and  place  whereunto  it  hath  pleased 
God  to  call  me,  I  give  warning  in  his  name,  unto  all 
that  profess  Christ,  that  they  flee  far  from  Babylon, 
if  they  will  save  their  souls,  and  to  beware  of  that 
great  harlot,  that  is  to  say,  the  pestiferous  See  of 
Rome,  that  she  make  you  not  drunk  with  her  plea- 
sant wine."t  "The  See  of  Rome,"  says  Hooper, 
"is  not  only  a  tyranny  and  pestilence  of  body  and 
soul,  but  the  nest  of  all  abomination.  God  give  him 
grace,  and  all  his  successors,  to  leave  their  abomina- 
tion, and  to  come  unto  the  light  of  God's  word.  This 

*  See  his  Book  on  the  Sacrament,  Fathers  of  the  English  Church, 
vol.  iii.  p.  350. 

t  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  p.  333. 


280 


LETTERS  ON 


beast  is  preached  unto  the  people,  to  be  a  man  that 
cannot  err;  his  authority  to  be  above  God  and  his 
laws;  and  to  be  the  prince  upon  earth  of  all  princes. 
But  God  will  judge  him,  as  he  is  a  murderer  of  both 
body  and  soul,  and  punish  the  princes  of  this  world 
that  uphold  his  abomination."*  "When  a  man," 
says  Latimer,  "is  a  right  Papist,  given  to  monkery,  I 
warrant  you  he  is  in  this  opinion,  that  with  his  own 
works  he  doth  merit  remission  of  sins,  and  satisfieth 
the  law  through  and  by  his  own  works,  and  so  think- 
eth  himself  to  be  saved  everlastingly.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  all  Papists;  and  this  doctrine  was  taught  in 
times  past,  in  schools,  and  in  the  pulpits.  Now,  all 
these  that  be  in  such  an  opinion,  they  be  the  enemies 
of  the  cross  of  Christ,  of  his  passion  and  blood-shed- 
ding." "Yea,"  says  he  elsewhere,  "what  fellowship 
hath  Christ  with  Anti-Christ?  Therefore  is  it  not 
lawful  to  bear  the  yoke  with  Papists."^  And  says 
Jewel,  "As  for  us  we  have  forsaken  a  Church  in 
which  we  could  neither  hear  the  pure  word  of  God, 
nor  administer  the  sacraments,  nor  invoke  the  name 
of  God  as  we  ought,"±  and  of  which  Gerson  com- 
plains, that  "the  multitude  of  light  and  foolish  cere- 
monies (in  it)  had  extinguished  all  that  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  should  have  flourished  in  us,  and 
all  that  was  truly  pious."§,  And  he  adds,  "Where- 
fore, if  the  Pope  does  indeed  desire  we  should  be  re- 
conciled to  him,  he  ought  first  to  reconcile  himself 
to  God;"||  which,  though  you  are  so  desirous  to  join 
his  communion,  has  never  yet  been  done.  But 
whether  you  respect  or  disregard  these  warnings,  it  is 
necessary  to  examine  whether  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion has  been  preserved  in  that  Church;  and  if  I  suc- 
ceed in  demonstrating  that  it  has  been  utterly  destroy- 
ed, it  will  follow  upon  your  principles,  as  well  as  its 

*  Fathers  of  the  English  Church,  vol.  v.  p.  117. 
t  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  659  ;  vol.  iv.  p.  1U3. 
t  I  hid.  vol.  vii.  p.  85. 

§  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,  Fathers  of  the  English 
Church,  vol.  vii.  p.  63. 
II  Ibid.  p.  119. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


281 


own,  that  it  has  long  ago  ceased  to  be  a  Christian 
Church,  and  has  not,  since  this  happened,  had  a  sin- 
gle bishop,  or  priest,  or  deacon  who  was  a  Christian 
minister,  nor  a  single  member  who  could  have  any 
hope  of  salvation.  And  if  that  event  took  place  prior 
to  the  Reformation,  it  will  furnish  another  unanswera- 
ble argument  to  show  that  that  succession  never  even 
began  in  your  National  Church  as  a  Protestant  Church, 
or  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  or  in  the  Church 
of  Ireland. 

Now,  I  beg  to  remark,  in  support  of  my  position, 
that  it  would  certainly  be  wonderful  if  the  succession 
had  been  preserved  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  when 
you  consider  its  doctrine  respecting  baptism.  It  has 
acknowledged,  at  least  for  many  centuries,  the  valid- 
ity of  that  ordinance  when  administered  by  Pagans, 
and  has  declared,  that  if  it  has  been  dispensed  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit,  it  cannot 
be  repeated  "without  sacrilege."  If  baptism,  how- 
ever, when  performed  by  presbyters,  because  they 
were  not  ordained  by  diocesan  bishops,  though  it  has 
been  done  in  that  name,  is  not  valid,  you  will  scarcely, 
I  apprehend,  admit  its  validity  when  administered  by 
heathens,  who  were  themselves  unbaptized,  and  who 
avowed  their  disbelief  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel, 
and  among  others  the  Trinity,  though  they  might  pro- 
nounce the  names  of  the  persons  in  the  Godhead.  But 
if  baptism  by  such  persons  was  invalid,  it  renders  it, 
I  conceive,  exceedingly  probable  that  the  succession 
must  have  been  broken  in  that  apostate  Church,  un- 
less you  can  prove,  that  for  seven  hundred  years  prior 
to  the  Reformation,  there  was  not  an  individual  in  any 
of  the  numerous  and  extensive  countries  which  ac- 
knowledged its  authority,  who,  though  baptized  by 
Pagans,  and  never  re-baptized,  was  raised  to  the  epis- 
copate. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  matter  of  probability,' but 
of  absolute  certainty,  that  the  succession  was  destroyed 
for  a  number  of  centuries  before  the  reformation,  both 
in  the  Western  and  Eastern  Churches;  and  in  confir- 


282 


LETTERS  ON 


mation  of  this  assertion,  I  would  solicit  your  attention 
to  the  following  facts  : 

You  will  scarcely  deny,  that  the  orders  of  laymen, 
who  were  promoted  at  once  to  the  office  of  bishops 
were  invalid  and  uncanonical,  and  yet  there  were  nu- 
merous instances  in  which  the  succession  was  broken 
by  such  gross  irregularities  in  the  Churches  of  Rome 
and  Constantinople.  Cyprian  was  only  a  neophyte, 
or  newly  baptized,  when  he  was  ordained  at  once  to 
be  bishop  of  Carthage;  Ambrose,  when  he  was  made 
bishop  of  Milan ;  and  Nectarius,  when  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  See  of  Constantinople.  And  Euche- 
rius  was  only  a  layman  when  he  was  made  bishop 
of  Lyons ;  and  Philogonius  of  Antioch  was  trans- 
ferred, according  to  Chrysostom,  from  a  court  of  jus- 
tice to  a  bishop's  throne.*  Tarasius,  though  a  layman, 
was  consecrated  to  the  see  of  Constantinople  in  784, 
and  made  many  bishops  and  presbyters;  and  Photius, 
who  was  in  the  same  state,  was  made  Patriarch  in 
854.  John  XIX.,  while  a  layman,  was  raised  at  once 
to  the  Popedom,  in  1024,  and  ordained  many  both 
among  the  higher  and  lower  orders  of  the  clergy. 
Clement  V.,  in  1308,  gave  the  archbishopric  of  Mentz 
to  Peter,  a  physician,  who  was  only  a  layman,  for 
attending  him  during  his  illness,  remarking,  that  "  it 
was  fit  the  cure  of  souls  should  be  committed  to  one 
who  was  so  expert  at  curing  the  body."  And  Ama- 
deus,  Duke  of  Savoy,  though  a  layman,  was  made 
Pope  in  1439,  and  consecrated  a  number  of  cardinals 
and  bishops  while  he  retained  that  office,  though  he 
resigned  it  in  1448.  It  would  be  easy  to  specify 
many  more  instances,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  And  I 
have  only  to  ask,  whether,  believing,  as  you  must, 
that  episcopal  orders  conferred  on  those  who  had 
been  baptized  only  by  Pagans,  or  bestowed  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  10th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Sardica, 
and  the  decisions  of  many  others  of  the  early  coun- 
cils, on  mere  laymen,  are  invalid;  and  knowing  that 

*  Pontius  in  Vit.  Cypri.  Socrat.,  1.  v.  c.  8;  Sozom.  1.  vii.  c.  8;  Hi- 
lary Arelat.  in  Vit.  Honorat.  Chrysostom,  Homil.  31,  de  Piiilog. 
See  Bower's  History  of  the  Popes,  vol.  iv.  p.  21. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


283 


these  laymen  ordained  many  bishops,  priests  and 
deacons,  yon  are  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  apos- 
tolical succession  has  been  lost  irrecoverably  both  in 
the  Western  and  Eastern  Churches?  And  I  have 
further  to  inquire,  whether  it  does  not  follow  from 
these  facts,  according  to  your  principles  and  those  of 
the  Papists,  that  in  neither  of  these  Churches,  any 
more  than  in  your  own,  or  in  any  other  Church  on 
the  face  of  the  earth,  is  there  either  at  present,  or  has 
there  been,  at  least  for  more  than  a  thousand  years,  a 
single  minister  who  was  entitled  to  be  considered  as  a 
Christian  minister,  nor  a  single  individual  who  could 
have  any  hope  of  salvation  ? 

The  same  thing  seems  to  follow  from  another  im- 
portant fact,  which  you  cannot  controvert,  namely, 
that  bishops  have  frequently  been  ordained  to  Sees 
which  were  held  by  others ;  and  consequently  the 
orders  which  were  conferred  on  them,  from  the  prin- 
ciples laid  down  in  your  own  canons,  and  in  those  of 
the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  and  in  the  decisions  of  the 
early  Christian  councils,  must  have  been  null  and 
void.  It  was  declared  by  Cyprian,  as  was  stated  in 
a  note,  p.  262,  that  "there  cannot  be  a  second  bishop 
after  the  first,  and  therefore  whoever  is  made  a 
bishop  after  the  first  is  not  a  second  bishop,  but  no 
bishop  at  all."  And,  on  that  account,  the  Council  of 
Nice  pronounced  those  whom  Miletius  had  ordained 
in  Egypt,  to  Sees  that  were  not  vacant,  to  be  "  no 
bishops."  Now,  we  know  that  many  bishops  were 
ordained  to  Sees,  both  in  the  Western  and  Eastern 
Churches,  which  were  held  by  others,  just  as  Ham- 
ilton was  ordained  to  the  See  of  Galloway,  of  which 
Sydserf  was  bishop;  and  therefore  their  own  ordina- 
tions, and  the  orders  which  they  conferred  upon  others, 
whether  bishops,  presbyters,  or  deacons,  and  the  bap- 
tisms administered  by  the  latter,  must  have  been  in- 
valid. At  the  end,  lor  instance,  of  the  very  century 
in  which  the  first  Council  of  Nice  was  held,  Augus- 
tine was  ordained  Bishop  of  Hippo  by  the  Primate 
of  Numidia,  and  a  number  of  bishops,  while  Vale- 
rius was  living,  and  had  not  resigned  his  See ;  and 


284 


LETTERS  ON 


he  was  never  re-ordained,  and  consequently  his  own 
orders,  and  those  which  he  gave,  must  have  been  null 
and  void.  Nor  was  it  done,  either  by  him  or  the 
prelates  who  ordained  him,  from  a  want  of  respect 
for  the  canons  of  that  Council,  but,  as  he  himself  ac- 
knowledges, from  their  being  ignorant  of  them;*  and 
though  he  named  his  successor,  and  caused  him  to  be 
elected,  he  would  not  suffer  him  to  be  ordained  while 
he  himself  was  living.t  Photius  was  divested  of  the 
priesthood  nine  years  after  his  consecration  to  the  See 
of  Constantinople,  because,  as  the  Council  of  Metz 
expresses  it,  "  in  the  lifetime  of  their  brother  Ignatius, 
Patriarch  of  that  Church,  he  had  intruded  himself  into 
it,  and  entered  the  sheepfold.not  by  the  door,  but  like 
a  thief  and  a  robber  ;"  and  yet,  in  the  course  of  that 
time,  he  had  made  many  bishops  and  presbyters. 
Pope  Silverins,  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  banished  from 
his  See  by  Belisarius,  in  537,  but  not  deposed,  and 
Vigilius  was  chosen  and  ordained  in  his  room.  His 
orders,  however,  were  invalid,  as  there  was  another 
bishop  to  whom  the  See  belonged,  and  there  could 
not  be  a  second ;  and  as  he  was  not  re-ordained  upon 
the  death  of  Silverins,  the  eighty-one  bishops  and 
forty-six  presbytersj  whom  he  ordained  during  his 
pontificate  have  given  a  fatal  blow  to  the  apostolical 
succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  in  every  Church 
which  was  connected  with  it.  And  as  none  of  your 
ministers,  or  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  is  able  to 
show  that  he  has  not  derived  his  orders  from  some 
of  these  prelates,  it  is  evident  that,  till  he  is  prepared 
to  do  so,  he  can  have  no  assurance  that  he  is  a  Chris- 
tian minister.  And  Eugenius  was  made  Pope  and 
Bishop  of  Rome  in  654,  when,  as  appears  from  a 
letter  of  Martin,  his  predecessor,  the  latter  had  not 
resigned,  so  that  his  ordinations  also  must  have  been 
equally  invalid. §  The  Anti-Pope  Guibert  was  made 
Bishop  of  Rome  in  10S0,  while  Gregory  VII.  held 
that  See;  and  he  claimed  that  bishopric  for  twenty 

*  August.  Ep.  110,  et  G4.    Possid.  in  Vit.  Aug.  c.  8. 
t  Epist.  110. 

t  hi  wer's  History  of  the  Popes,  vol.  ii.  p.  374. 
§  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  68,  69. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


285 


years  during  the  pontificate  of  Gregory,  Victory  III. 
and  Urban  II.,  and  all  the  orders  which  he  gave  must 
have  been  a  nullity.  From  1159  to  11S2  there  were 
in  succession  four  Anti-Popes ;  and  though  the  ordi- 
nations which  they  made  were  declared  by  Alexander 
III.  to  be  invalid,  yet  the  persons  who  received  them 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  re-ordained  upon  their 
submitting  to  his  authority ;  nor  were  the  individuals 
whom  they  baptized  rebaptized.  And  for  thirty 
years  more,  or  from  137S  till  1409,  there  were  two 
Popes,  one  residing  at  Rome,  and  the  other  at  Avig- 
non, of  whom  it  was  remarked  by  Bower,  "that  it  has 
never  yet  been  decided  tvhich  was  the  true  Pope." 
Both  the  rival  Popes  were  deposed  in  1409,  and  Alex- 
ander V.  appointed  Pope,  who  confirmed  the  ordi- 
nations made  by  the  two  competitors,  provided  they 
were  in  other  respects  canonical.*  But  it  is  plain, 
that  his  decision  could  not  make  the  orders  of  those 
who  received  them  valid  without  reordination ;  and 
as  this  never  took  place,  the  injury  which  was  done 
to  the  apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
during  that  long  period,  by  so  many  irregular  and 
uncanonical  ordinations,  must  evidently  be  incalcu- 
lable, and  demonstrates  that  that  Church  which  you 
so  much  admire  cannot,  upon  your  principles,  be  a 
Christian  Church,  nor  its  ministers  Christian  ministers, 
and  that  not  even  one  of  its  members  can  have  any 
hope  of  salvation. t 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  yours,  &c. 

*  Bower's  History  of  the  Popes,  vol.  vii.  p.  125. 

t  It  deserves  to  be  noticed,  that  Fonnosus,  who  had  been  degraded 
from  his  bishopric,  and  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  layman  by  John 
VIII.,  upon  his  elevation  to  the  Popedom,  ordained  Plegmund  to  be 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who,  as  Professor  Killen  observes,  from 
Innet,  (Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  50,)  ordained  no  less  than  seven 
bishops  in  one  day,  and  held  the  See  for  twenty-six  years.  For- 
mosus,  however,  was  deposed  after  his  death,  first  by  Stephen  VII., 
and  then  by  Sergius,  who  "deposed  likewise  all  such  as  had  been 
consecrated  and  invested  by  him."  The  latter  act  was  never  re- 
voked by  him,  and  as  Plegmund  was  never  reordained,  it  presents 
an  alarming  view  of  the  slate  of  the  orders  of  the  English  clergy, 
according  to  Dr.  Pusey's  principles,  and  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians, 
whose  bishops,  both  in  1610  and  1661,  received  their  orders  from  the 
English  bishops. 


2S6 


LETTER  XVIII. 

Additional  evidence  that  the  succession  has  been  lost  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
— Boys  ordained  to  be  Bishops,  and  striplings  made  Popes — Atheists  and 
avowed  infidels  raised  to  the  Popedom. —  I'apal  canon,  that  "if  a  Pope 
should  carry  w  ith  him  innumerable  souls  to  hell.no  man  must  presume  to 
find  fault  with  him."  Simoniacal  ordmationsdeclared  toid  by  the  canons 
of  many  Councils,  aud  yet  lor  eight  hundred  years  there  w  ere  many  such 
onlinaiions,  both  in  the  Western  and  Kastern  Churches. — Idiols,  and  per- 
sons, "who.  when  tliey  read,  prayed,  or  sang,  knew  not  wheiher  they 
blessed  God  or  blasphemed  him,"  ordained  to  be  bishops. — Multitudes  of 
the  most  immoral  individuals,  some  of  whom  "drank  wine  in  honour  of 
the  devil,"'  made  Popes  and  Bishops. 

Reverend  Sir, — I  appeal  further,  in  support  of  my 
position,  to  the  ordination  of  individuals  to  the  highest 
and  most  important  functions  in  the  Church,  when 
they  were  far  from  an  age  which  could  prepare  them 
for  being  admitted  even  into  the  lowest  of  its  orders. 
John  the  Tenth,  for  instance,  confirmed  the  election 
of  Hugh,  son  of  Count  Hubert,  in  925,  to  the  Arch- 
bishopric of  Rheims,  though  he  was  scarcely  five 
years  old;  and  he  was  consecrated  in  a  council  of 
bishops  at  Soissons,  when  he  was  only  eighteen  years 
of  age.*  John  the  Twelfth,  though  destitute  of  every 
quality*  which  could  fit  him  for  being  received  even  as 
a  member  of  the  Church,  was  made  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  Head  of  the  Universal  Church,  in  956,  when  he 
was  only  eighteen,  and  retained  the  Popedom  till  963, 
when  he  was  deposed.t  And  among  other  charges 
brought  against  him  before  the  Council,  and  which 
were  not  contradicted,  "John,  Bishop  of  Narni,  and 
John  Cardinal  Deacon,  attested,  that  they  had  seen 
him  ordain  a  deacon  in  a  stable;  and  Benedict,  dea- 
con, with  other  deacons  and  priests,  said,  that  they 
knew  for  certain  that  he  had  ordained  bishops  for 
money,  and  had,  among  the  rest,  ordained  a  child  but 
ten  years  old  Bishop  of  Todi."l    Nor  were  these 

*  Bower,  vol.  v.  p.  94-100. 
+  Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  104. 

X  Ibid.  vol.  v.  p.  103.  Bower  was  Professor  of  Rhetoric,  History 
and  Philosophy  in  the  Universities  of  Rome,  Firmo,  and  Macerata; 
and  in  the  latter  place,  Counsellor  to  the  Inquisition. 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


287 


solitary  instances,  for  Ratherius,  Bishop  of  Verona  in 
Italy,  during  the  tenth  century,  is  said  by  Dr.  Allix, 
in  his  Remarks  on  the  Ancient  Churches  of  Piedmont, 
(p.  241.)  to  have  written  to  the  Bishop  of  Parma,  "to 
desire  him  to  confer  orders  upon  children  for  money 
no  more,  as  he  was  wont  to  do;"  and  there  were 
manv  similar  ordinations  during  successive  centuries. 
But  if  such  be  the  case,  I  should  like  to  be  informed, 
whether  you  really  believe  that  the  apostolic  succes- 
sion has  been  preserved  in  that  Church,  by  orders 
conferred  on  boys  and  striplings,  whom  none  of  your 
bishops  would  venture  to  ordain,  and  whether  you, 
Mr.  Newman,  Dr.  Hook,  or  Mr.  Perceval  are  able  to 
prove  that  your  own  orders  have  not  come  to  you 
from  the  Bishop  of  Todi,  or  (he  Archbishop  of  liheims, 
or  some  other  prelate  who  was  ordained  in  his  boy- 
•hood,  so  as  to  justify  your  claims  to  the  honourable 
character  of  Christian  ministers. 

And  then,  when,  along  with  the  consecration  of 
boys  and  of  men  who  had  never  been  baptized  at  all, 
or  baptized  by  Pagans,  to  the  office  of  bishops,  you 
consider  the  doctrine  which  was  taught  in  that  Church 
for  many  ages,  it  will  certainly  be  strange  if  you  ven- 
ture to  assert  that  it  has  preserved  the  succession. 
"The  Church,"  said  Melancthon,  whom  your  most 
distinguished  prelates  were  accustomed  to  venerate, 
"  is  not  hound  to  the  ordinary  succession  of  bishops, 
but  to  the  Gospel.  When  bishops  do  not  teach  right 
doctrine  they  must  be  left,  for  the  ordinary  succession 
is  of  no  avail  to  the  Church."*  "Of  the  right  use  of 
sacraments,"  says  Bishop  Hooper,  "it  is  taught,  1  Cor. 
xi.,  Mark  xvi.,  Luke  xxiv.  and  Matt,  xxviii.,  which 
teach  people  to  know  the  Church  by  these  signs.  The 
traditions  of  men,  and  the  succession  of  bishops  teach 
wrong.  Those  two  false  opinions  have  given  unto 
the  succession  of  bishops  power  to  interpret  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  power  to  make  such  laws  in  the  Church  as 

*"Dixi  supra  ecclcsiam  non  esse  alligatam  ad  succcssionem  ordi- 
nariam,  ut  vocant,  episcoporum,  sed  ad  cvangelium.  Dum  episcopi 
non  rectc  docent,  nihil  ad  ecclesiatn  pertinet  ordinaria  successio,  sed 
neccssario  relinquendi  sunt;"  torn.  i.  f'ol.  231,Opcrum. 


288 


LETTERS  ON 


it  pleased  them.  God,  for  the  preservation  of  his 
Church,  doth  give  unto  certain  persons  the  gift  and 
knowledge  to  open  (he  Scripture:  but  that  gift  is  not 
a  power  bound  to  any  order,  or  succession  of  bishops, 
or  title  of  dignity."*  And  said  Bilson,  "The  succes- 
sion is  of  no  weight,  unless  truth  of  doctrine  and  pu- 
rity of  life  be  added  to  it. "t  I  shall  immediately 
inquire  whether  the  bishops  and  dignitaries  of  the 
Romish  Church  were  distinguished  by  that  purity,  and 
I  beg  to  inquire  at  you  and  all  your  followers,  as 
honest,  consistent  and  intelligent  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  whether  you  think  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  many  of  its 
bishops,  not  merely  on  lesser,  but  on  the  most  momen- 
tous points,  was  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Sa- 
cred Scriptures  ?  Jewel,  in  his  Apology  for  the  Church 
of  England,  points  out  many  monstrous  and  fatal  er- 
rors in  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  as  it  is  one  of  the 
public  books  of  your  Church,  as  long  as  you  remain 
in  it,  you  must  concur  in  his  statements.  And  I  should 
like  to  know  whether  you  believe  that  any  one  who 
held  these  heresies  could  preserve  the  succession.  We 
know,  too,  that  infidels  and  atheists  have  been  ele- 
vated to  the  highest  place  in  that  Church,  and  I  would 
be  glad  if  you  will  show  how  they  could  maintain  the 
succession,  by  laying  their  hands  on  the  heads  of 
others,  any  more  than  Satan,  if  he  were  to  appear 
upon  earth  in  a  human  form,  could  do  it  by  the  im- 
position of  his  hands.  "  We  remember,"  says  the 
noble  Picus  of  Mirandula,  "another  ordained  and  re- 
ceived for  true  Pope,  who,  in  the  opinion  of  good  men, 
neither  was  nor  could  be  true  Pope,  as  he  believed  no 
God,  and  exceeded  the  utmost  pitch  of  infidelity.  It 
is  affirmed,  he  confessed  to  some  of  his  domestics  that 
he  believed  no  God  even  ivhen  he  sat  in  the  Papal 
chair.    And  I  have  heard  of  another  Pope,  who  own- 

*  Declaration  of  Christ  and  his  Office,  Fathers  of  the  English 
Church,  vol.  v.  p.  177.  I  quote  now  from  this  edition,  as  I  have  not 
retained  the  copy  from  which  I  made  the  other  extracts, 

t  "  Successio  nullius  pondcris  e>t  nisi  addatur  doctrinae  Veritas  et 
pura  vitae  conversatio."    Parker  de  Politeia  Ecclesiast.  p.  163. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


289 


ed  to  one  of  his  intimates  that  he  did  not  believe  the 
immortality  of  the  soul."*  And  yet  it  is  from  men 
like  these  that  you  and  your  followers  derive  that  dio- 
cesan apostolical  succession  in  which  you  so  much 
glory.  And  we  are  informed  by  Jewel,  in  his  Apo- 
logy for  your  Church,  that  "Pope  Liberius  was  an 
Arian,"  and  undeified  his  Saviour;  that  "Pope  John 
thought  very  lewdly  and  Avickedly  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  and  of  the  life  to  come ;  and  that,  as  Ly- 
ranus  saith,  many  Popes  have  renounced  the  Chris- 
tian faith  and  become  Apostates"!  The  following, 
too,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting 
the  power  of  the  Popes.  "We,"  says  Innocent  III., 
"according  to  the  plenitude  of  our  power,  have  a  right 
to  dispense  with  all  right;"!  upon  which  Bellarmine 
remarks,  that  "should  the  Pope  enjoin  vice,  and  for- 
bid virtue,  the  Church  would  sin,  if  she  did  not  believe 
virtue  to  be  evil,  and  vice  to  be  good."§  "  Nor  was 
this  at  all  wonderful,"  says  Bower,  "for  Cardinal  Za- 
barel,  who  nourished  near  four  hundred  years  ago, 
writes,  that  in  his  and  in  the  preceding  times,  the 
Popes  had  been  persuaded  by  their  flattering  divines 
that  they  might  do  whatever  they  pleased,  even  such 
things  as  were  in  themselves,  and  with  respect  to 
others,  unlawful ;  and  so  could  do  more  than  God 
himself."^  And  says  one  of  the  Papal  canons, 
"  Should  a  Pope  be  so  wicked  as  to  carry  with  him 
innumerable  souls  to  hell,  let  no  man  presume  to  find 
fault  with  him,  or  reprove  him,  because  he  who  is  to 
judge  all  men  is  judged  of  none. "IT  Nay,  such  was 
the  blasphemy  practised  in  that  Church,  in  which  the 
Papists,  according  to  Jewel,  "had  left  almost  nothing 

*  Theor.  IV. 

t  Apology,  p.  91,  92,  vol.  vii.  of  the  Fathers  of  the  English  Church, 
t  Inn.  III.  Decret.  Greg.  lib.  iii.  tit,  8,  c.  4. 
§  Bellarm.  de  Pontific.  Rom.  lib.  iv.  cap.  5. 
II  Zabar.  de  Schism. 

H  "  Si  Papas  suae,  &c.  Grat.  dist.  40.  cap.  6.  "  Dost  thou  not 
know,"  said  Paul  the  Second  to  the  auditors  of  the  Rota,  "that  all 
laws  arc  lodged  in  our  breast.  Sentence  is  given,  and  all  shall  obey 
it.  Iam  l'ope,  and  have  a  power  to  approve  or  condemn  at  my  pleasure 
the  actions  of  all  other  men."    Platina  et  Summont.  torn.  iii.  p.  474. 

19 


290 


LETTERS  ON 


like  a  Church,"  that  as  he  elsewhere  remarks,  "they 
impudently  solicited  the  Virgin  Mary,  that  she  would 
remember  she  was  a  mother ;  that  she  would  be 
pleased  to  command  her  son,  and  that  she  would  make 
use  of  the  authority  she  had  over  him."*  But  if  such 
was  the  doctrine  respecting  the  power  of  the  Popes 
which  was  taught  at  one  time  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
from  which  you  have  derived  the  succession,  (and  it 
has  never  been  recalled,  as  might  naturally  have  been 
expected,  till  the  present  day,  for  she  claims  the  attri- 
butes of  infallibility  and  immutability,)  and  if  such 
was  the  blasphemy  which  she  openly  tolerated,  I  ask 
you  whether  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  men,  who 
avowed  these  sentiments,  claimed  these  powers,  and 
connived  at  these  heaven-daring  and  revolting  sins, 
could  preserve  the  succession  ? 

Nor  is  my  position  less  clearly  and  conclusively 
established  by  the  numerous  instances  of  the  most  dis- 
graceful simony  which  prevailed  both  in  the  Western 
and  Eastern  Churches.  "  It  has  been  generally  allow- 
ed," says  Dr.  Forbes, <l  that  the  lawful  succession  of 
true  pastors  is  interrupted  and  broken  by  simony,  and 
that  every  ecclesiastical  person  who  is  simoniacally 
promoted  is  irregular,  and  of  right  alien  from  the  priest- 
hood, suspended  and  deprived  of  his  office,  and  lies 
under  an  anathema."t  "  If  any  bishop,  presbyter,  or 
deacon,"  says  the  30th  Apostolic  Canon,  "  obtains  a 
dignity  by  money,  let  him  be  deposed;  and  let  him 
who  ordained  him  be  cut  off  from  the  communion  of 
the  Church,  as  Simon  Magus  was  by  St.  Peter."  "  He 
who  is  ordained  according  to  this  evil  custom,"  says 
the  Second  Council  of  Nice,  (canon  5,)  "  is  alien  from 
God,  and  excluded  wholly  from  the  priesthood." 
"Neither  they  who  buy,  nor  they  who  sell  holy 
orders,"  says  Gregory,  "  can  be  priests,  because  ana- 
thema is  denounced  both  against  him  that  gives,  and 
him  that  receives  them."  And  it  is  declared  by  Gela- 
sius,  that  "  the  damnation  of  Simon  involves  both  the 

*  Apology,  p.  56  and  30. 

t  Instructiones  Historico-Theologicae,  lib.  xvi.  cap.  6,  sec.  6,  p. 
781. 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACY. 


291 


receiver  and  the  giver."*  The  same,  also,  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Sixth  Council  of  Constantinople,  which 
decrees,  (canons  22,  23,)  that  "if  a  bishop  or  any 
other  of  the  clergy  be  ordained  for  money,  both  he  that 
ordained  him,  and  he  that  is  ordained,  shall  be  de- 
posed; for  grace,"  say  they,  "cannot  be  sold,  nor  do 
we  bestow  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  for  money." 
And  if  the  orders  of  him  who  is  ordained  to  be  a 
bishop  for  money,  by  the  canons  both  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches,  be  void,t  it  follows  on  the 
same  principle,  that  if  he  should  contrive  to  retain  his 
bishopric,  all  the  orders  which  he  confers  afterwards 
on  others,  whether  bishops,  presbyters,  or  deacons, 
must  also  be  void,  and  the  apostolical  succession  must 
be  broken. 

And  yet  how  stands  the  fact  in  regard  to  the  ordi- 
nations in  both  these  Churches,  as  far  as  relates  to 
simony?  In  the  year  531,  on  the  death  of  Boniface  II., 
says  Bower,  "many  aspired  to  the  vacant  dignity, spa- 
ring neither  pains  nor  money  to  attain  it.  For  in  spite 
of  many  laws,  both  ecclesiastic  and  civil,  simony  still 
reigned  without  mask  or  disguise.  Votes  were  pub- 
licly bought  and  sold,  and  money  was  offered  to  the 
senators  themselves."^  Baronius  says  of  Vigilius, 
when  he  was  Anti-Pope,  that  "he  was  not  only  a  se- 
cond Lucifer,  striving  to  ascend  into  heaven,  and  exalt 
his  throne  above  the  stars,  but,  by  the  weight  of  his 
enormous  sacrileges  and  heinous  crimes,  brought  down 
to  hell,  a  schismatic,  a  simoniac,  a  murderer,  not  the 
successor  of  Simon  Peter,  but  of  Simon  Magus,  not 
the  vicar  of  Christ,  but  an  Anti-Christ,  an  idol  set  up 
in  the  temple  of  God,  a  wolf,  a  thief,  and  a  robber  ;§ 
though,  when  he  was  elevated  to  the  Popedom,  upon 

*  See,  too,  what  is  collected  by  Gratian,  canon  1,  qnaest.  1,  as 
abridged  by  Francowitz,  in  his  Catalogus  Testium,  p.  1469. 

t  The  Council  of  Orleans,  in  536,  declares,  that  "  if  any  person,  by 
an  execrable  ambition,  seeks  to  obtain  the  priesthood  by  money,  he  is 
to  be  rejected  as  a  reprobate."  A  similar  decision  was  pronounced 
by  the  Council  of  Bracara  de  Braga,  in  572;  and  there  is  no  point  in 
regard  to  which  the  Councils  of  both  Churches  are  more  united  and 
determined. 

t  Bower,  vol.  ii.  p.  332.  §  Baronius,  ad  an.  538. 


292 


LETTERS  ON 


the  death  of  Silverius,  he  makes  him  a  good  Catholic, 
In  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  Gregory  the  Great 
wrote  a  great  many  letters  to  the  bishops,  to  the  kings 
and  princes,  and  to  all  men  in  power,  earnestly  en- 
treating them  to  "assemble  councils,  and  jointly  to 
concert  such  measures  as  might  put  an  effectual  stop 
to  (simony)  an  evil  that  reflected  so  much  disgrace  on 
the  ecclesiastical  order,  and  on  the  holy  religion  which 
they  taught  or  professed."*  "  In  the  time  of  this 
Pope,"  says  Fraucowitz  of  the  monster  Sergius,  who 
lived  in  the  ninth  century,  "and  of  his  brother,  (Ben- 
edict,) bishop?'ics  were  disposed  of  by  public  sale  ;" 
and  in  the  tenth  century,  "  no  one  was  provided  for 
or  created  a  bishop  unless  he  paid  for  it,  or  bound 
himself  to  do  so  under  the  most  tremendous  penal- 
ties."t  The  same  practice  continued  in  the  eleventh 
century,  for  he  says  that  "  they  sold  bishoprics  and 
other  ecclesiastical  offices;"  and  adds,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Aventinus,  that  "  most  of  the  bishops  and 
abbots  in  Germany  had  fallen  from  their  dignity 
through  simony,  and  that  three  of  the  Popes,  Bene- 
dict IX.,  Silvester  III.  and  Gregory  VI.  had  procured 
the  Popedom  by  money."J  And  so  generally  did  it 
prevail  throughout  the  whole  Romish  Church,  that 
when  Leo  IX.  proposed  in  a  council,  which  was  held 
at  Rome  in  1049,  that  all  simoniacal  ordinations 
should  be  declared  null,  the  majority  of  the  bishops 
opposed  him;  for  they  said,  that  if  such  a  decree 
should  pass,  "  scarce  any  would  be  found  in  some 
dioceses  capable  of  performing  the  sacerdotal  or 
episcopal  functio?is."§  I  have  heard,  said  John, 
Bishop  of  Salisbury,  in  1159,  to  Hadrian  IV.,  when 
he  urged  him  to  tell  him  his  mind,  that  "all  things 

*  Bower,  vol.  ii.  p.  480. 

t  Catalogus  Testium,  1097  and  1206.  See  also  what  is  said  of 
John  XIII.  p.  1277. 

t  Catalogus  Testium,  1355,  1356,  and  1358.  He  tells  us,  p.  1257, 
that  Peter  Damianus  complained  grievously  of  the  simony  of  his  time, 
and  wrote  a  book  against  it. 

§  Bower,  vol.  v.  p.  167.  He  states  further,  that  in  1074,  most  of  the 
German  Bishops  "  had  purchased  their  bishoprics  from  the  emperor 
or  his  ministers." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


293 


are  venal  at  Rome  ;  that  for  money  you  may  obtain 
to-day  what  yon  please,  but  the  next  day  you  will  get 
nothing  without  it.  The  Roman  Pontiff  himself  is, 
they  say,  a  burden  to  all  almost  insupportable."* 
And  St.  Bernard,  on  the  19th  Psalm,  observes,  that 
"the  offices  of  ecclesiastical  dignity  were  turned  into 
filthy  lucre,  and  a  work  of  darkness;"  and  Hugo 
Flaviacensis,  "  that  all  the  clergy  rather  sought  their 
own  things  than  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  chose 
rather  to  adhere  to  the  discipleship  of  Simon,  than  to 
the  poverty  of  Christ,  "t  It  was  no  less  prevalent  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  for  it  is  asserted  by  Matthew 
Paris,  that  "  it  was  committed  at  that  time"  in  the 
Church  of  England,  u  without  shame ;"  and  it  is 
pointed  out  by  Durandus,  as  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant steps  towards  the  reformation  of  the  Church,  that 
simony  should  be  repressed,  which,  says  he,  "reigns 
at  Rome  as  if  it  were  no  sin."J  In  accordance  with 
which  it  is  mentioned  by  Wickliff,  that,  "  in  the  year 
1226,  a  Legate  of  the  Pope,  whom  he  had  sent  into 
England,  produced  a  bull  to  the  Parliament,  in  which 
it  is  distinctly  admitted,  that  nothing  could  be  done  at 
Rome  without  the  greatest  profusion  of  money,  and 
the  most  ample  gifts ;  and  that  therefore  the  Church 
of  Rome,  the  mother  of  all  other  Churches,  was  infa- 
mous for  its  avarice,  simony  and  corruption. "§  Al- 
varus  Pelagius,  when  speaking  of  the  Popes  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  laments  that  "  many  of  them  came 
into  their  Sees  by  simony ;  of  the  bishops,  that  they 
conferred  orders  for  rewards,  and  were  simoniacal, 
especially  in  Spain,  where  not  one  of  a  hundred  con- 
ferred orders  or  benefices  without  simony;  of  the 
presbyters,  that  they  were  commonly  promoted  by 
simony ;  and  of  the  Church  in  general,  that  her  pre- 

*  Bower,  vol.  vi.  p.  10!). 

t  Chron.  Verdun,  p.  207 ;  Concil.  torn.  x.  p.  375. 
t  Catalogus  Testiurn,  p.  1621. 

()  See  his  work  dc  Papae  Potestate,  as  cited  by  Francowitz,  p  1773. 
The  Legate  proposed,  that  to  prevent  this  evil,  a  certain  proportion  of 
the  funds  of  the  monasteries  and  cathedral  churches  should  be  given 
to  the  Pope,  which  was  refused. 


294 


LETTERS  OS 


lates  did  nothing  now  but  by  gifts  and  rewards."* 
And  while  it  is  mentioned  by  Sigismund,  that  "  not  a 
single  prelate"  in  the  fifteenth  century,  "from  Nich- 
olas the  Third,"  i.  e.  for  three  hundred  years  before, 
"  had  been  free  from  simony;"  by  Alanus  Chartier, 
secretary  to  King  Charles  the  Seventh,  that  "he 
would  be  silent  respecting  the  simony,  and  illicit  con- 
tracts, of  the  bishops,  because  he  was  afraid  that  by 
the  very  recitation  of  them  the  heaven  itself  would 
be  darkened ;"  and  by  Hermannus  Ried,  that  "  from 
the  greatness  of  their  luxury,  their  other  vices,  such 
as  avarice,  simony  and  perfidy,  were  not  considered 
as  sins  ;"t  it  is  impossible  to  read  the  following  ac- 
count of  the  conduct  of  the  bishops,  delivered  by 
Clemangis,  without  feelings  of  the  deepest  humili- 
ation and  regret  that  such  things  should  have  been 
practised  in  the  Christian  Church.  "  There  be  very 
many  things,"  says  he,  "in  our  bishops  worthy  of  re- 
prehension, but  this  least  of  all  to  be  endured,  that 
for  imposition  of  hands,  collation  of  orders,  sacred 
and  inferior,  they  do  not  only  receive,  but  exact  and 
extort  money,  setting  a  price  upon  all  orders,  which 
if  it  be  not  paid,  they  will  admit  no  person  into 
orders,  though  he  be  never  so  icell  qualified,  by  his 
?nan?iers,  life  and  learning.  The  Church  is  now  be- 
come a  shop  of  merchandise,  or  rather  of  robbery 
and  rapine,  in  ivhich  all  the  sacraments  are  exposed 
to  sale.  Would  a  man  have  a  bishopric?  He  must 
provide  his  money.  Does  he  desire  a  prebend,  or 
any  other  dignity  ?  It  is  no  matter  what  his  life, 
merit,  or  conversation  be,  but  the  great  question  is, 
what  money  he  may  have  to  buy  it."i  It  would  be 
easy  to  produce  numerous  instances  of  similar  simony, 
though  not  to  the  same  extent,  in  the  Eastern  Church, 
where  John  Talaia  was  expelled  for  that  crime  from 
the  See  of  Alexandria,  in  4S2,  and  had  many  who 
followed  his  disgraceful  example,  but  I  am  unwilling 

*  Second  Book  de  Planctu  Ecclesiae. 

t  Catalogus  Testium,  p.  1677,  1654,  1653.    Examine  also  what  is 
said  by  the  Bishop  of  Civita,  as  it  is  quoted  by  Ried,  p.  1639. 
t  See  his  book  on  Simoniacal  Prelates. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


295 


to  prolong  these  disgusting  details.  If  it  was  de- 
clared then  of  old,  that  those  who  were  guilty  of  the 
sin  of  simony  had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  power  of  com- 
municating the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  if  it  follows,  as  has 
been  determined  by  the  Councils  of  the  Church  in 
every  age,  that  they  have  no  part  or  lot  in  receiving 
the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  or  in  conferring  it  on 
others,  it  is  plain,  that  in  all  cases  where  individuals 
were  raised  to  the  office  of  the  episcopate  by  such 
simoniacal  pactions,  their  orders  were  void,  and  con- 
sequently the  orders  which  they  conferred  upon 
others.  And  as  the  instances  in  which  this  was  done 
for  eight  hundred  years,  not  only  in  the  Eastern,  but 
the  Western  Churches,  are  said  not  merely  by  Pro- 
testants, but  by  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  whose  testimony  has  been  produced,  to  have 
been  incredibly  numerous,  it  is  evident  that  the  suc- 
cession must  have  been  completely  broken  in  both 
these  Churches,  and  those  Episcopalian  Churches 
which  were  connected  with  them;  and  consequently, 
that,  upon  your  principles,  they  must  long  ago  have 
ceased  to  be  Christian  Churches,  and  none  of  their 
members  can  have  the  smallest  hope  of  being  per- 
mitted to  share  in  the  blessings  of  salvation. 

I  have  only  further  to  remark,  that  many  who  were 
ordained  to  the  office  of  bishops  were  so  grossly  igno- 
rant, and  so  notoriously  immoral,  that  it  is  utterly 
incomprehensible  how  they  could  preserve  the  suc- 
cession. 

A  bishop,  you  know,  is  required  to  be  "  apt  to 
teach,"  before  he  receive  his  commission;  and  if  he  is 
destitute  of  this  gift  notoriously  and  undeniably  to  an 
extreme  degree,  or  if  he  happen  to  be  an  idiot  before 
he  is  invested  with  his  office,  the  commission  will  not 
avail  him,  and  he  cannot  give  it  to  others.  For  as  Dr. 
Whitby  observes,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Sermon  on 
Matthew  xii.  7,  "  it  seemeth  as  absurd  to  say  to  an 
idiot,  who  lies  under  a  moral  incapacity  to  teach, 
'  Take  thou  authority  to  teach  the  Gospel,'  as  to  say 
this  to  a  deaf  and  dumb  man,  who  lies  under  a  natu- 


296 


LETTERS  ON 


ral  incapacity  to  do  it,  seeing  a  moral  incapacity, 
whilst  it  lasts,  renders  a  man  as  incapable  of  teaching, 
as  a  natural  incapacity."  Now,  the  following  are  the 
statements  of  eminent  Roman  Catholics,  respecting 
the  aptness  of  many  who  were  raised  to  the  episcopate, 
and  who  ordained  others  to  teach  and  preach: 

Petrus  Blessensis,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  exclaims 
thus  in  his  23d  Epistle,  "  How  did  this  execrable  pre- 
sumption prevail,  that  unworthy  persons  should  thus 
grasp  at  dignity,  and  the  less  they  deserved  such 
honours,  the  more  earnestly  should  thrust  themselves 
into  them?  For  now,"  says,  he,  "  unhappy  men  do 
thrust  themselves  into  the  pastoral  chair  by  right  or 
wrong.  He  that  hath  learned  nothing  becomes  a 
teacher  of  others;  and  though  he  belike  the  sounding 
brass,  and  tinkling  cymbal,  usurps  the  office  of  a 
teacher,  being  an  unprofitable  trunk  and  dumb  idol." 

In  the  fourteenth  century,  Marsilius  of  Padua  men- 
tions that  "the  Pope,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power 
rejects  and  nulls  the  election  of  sufficient  and  approved 
men  to  almost  all  ecclesiastical  dignities,  though 
rightly  made  ;  and  in  their  stead  appoints  men  igno- 
rant of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  idiots,  unlearned  persons, 
and  for  the  most  part  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  noto- 
riously wicked.  Our  modern  bishops,  (which  it  is  a 
shame  to  say,)  neither  know  how  to  preach  the  word 
of  God  to  the  people,  nor  to  resist  the  doctrine  of  the 
heretics.  And  as  for  the  rest  of  the  inferior  prelates, 
abbots,  priors,  and  other  curates  of  the  Church,  I  call 
God  to  witness,  that  the  numerous  multitude  of  them 
are  both  void  of  sufficient  learning  and  life,  so  that  the 
most  of  them  know  not  how  to  speak  congruously, 
according  to  the  rules  of  grammar;  but  yet,  out  of  the 
fulness  of  the  Pope's  power,  the  greatest  dignities  are 
given  to  such  as  these."  And  he  says,  respecting  the 
cardinals,  that  "  lascivious  young  men,  and  ignorant 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  many  of  them  promoted  to 
that  dignity."* 

Alvarus  Pelagius  complains  of  the  bishops  that 

*  Defensor  Pacis,  lib.  ii.  cap.  14,  p.  354. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


297 


"they  conferred  benefices  on  unworthy  persons. 
This,"  says  he,  "is  so  common  in  our  times,  that  they 
ordained  men  whom  they  knew  to  be  unlearned  and 
unfit,  (cap.  3.) — that  being  idiots  they  suffered  them- 
selves to  be  made  bishops;  and  (cap.  4,)  that  they 
promiscuously  ordained  good  and  bad." 

Nicolaus  de  Clemangis,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  in 
his  treatise  on  Simoniacal  Prelates,  to  which  I  have 
already  referred,  says,  "therefore  you  may  see  such 
men  admitted  to  the  priesthood,  and  other  holy  offices, 
who  are  idiots,  unlearned,  and  scarce  able  to  read, 
though  wayioardly ■,  and  ivithout  understanding  one 
syllable  after  another,  who  know  no  more  of  Latin 
than  they  do  of  Arabic,  and  who,  when  they  read, 
pray,  or  sing,  know  not  whether  they  bless  God,  or 
blaspheme  him;  men  undisciplined,  unquiet,  gluttons, 
drunkards,  praters,  vagabonds,  lustful,  bred  up  in 
luxury,  and,  in  one  word,  idle  and  ignorant;"  (chap. 
1.)  And  in  his  book  on  the  corrupt  state  of  the 
Church,  he  says  that  the  Pope  had  stocked  the  Church 
with  ignorant  and  wicked  men.  "  Good  God,"  he 
cries  out,  "  how  great  a  number  of  expectants  from 
that  time,  (when  he  had  taken  away  from  the  bishops 
and  patrons  the  power  of  presenting  to  benefices,) 
came  in,  not  from  their  studies,  and  the  schools,  but 
from  the  plough  and  servile  arts,  to  become  parish 
priests,  and  to  obtain  other  benefices,  who  knew  no 
more  of  the  Latin  than  of  the  Arabic  tongue,  who 
could  not  read,  and  (which  it  is  a  shame  to  speak  of) 
scarce  knew  A  from  B,  and  yet  their  immorality  was 
greater  than  their  ignorance."  And  he  adds,  that 
"  through  the  avarice,  simony  and  other  vices  of  the 
cardinals,  it  came  to  pass  that  no  man  learned  in  the 
Scriptures,  no  honest,  just  and  virtuous  persons  were 
advanced  to  high  dignities;  but  buffoons  only,  flat- 
terers, ambitious  persons,  and  men  corrupted  with  all 
vices,  that  they  either  wholly  were  unlearned,  or  they 
knew  nothing  of  God's  law;  that  being  youths  with- 
out beards,  and  scarce  got  from  under  the  ferula,  they 
obtained  a  bishopric,  knowing  as  little  of  that  office 
as  of  the  mariner's  vocation.    What  should  I  speak," 


29S 


LETTERS  ON 


says  he,  "of  the  learning  of  the  priests,  when  it  is  visible 
that  scarce  any  of  them  can  read?  They  know  not 
words,  and  much  less  things.  He  of  them  that  prayeth 
is  a  barbarian  to  himself.  If  any  man  is  idle  and 
abhors  labour,  if  he  loves  luxury,  he  gets  now-a-days 
into  the  clergy."  And  Gerson  complains  "  that  bishops 
of  good  life  and  doctrine  were  not  chosen  any  where, 
but  carnal  men,  and  ignorant  of  spiritual  things." 

But  the  most  revolting  feature  in  the  character  of  a 
great  majority  of  the  bishops,  through  a  succession  of 
centuries,  was  not  merely  their  hypocrisy,  like  that  of 
Judas,  which  was  known  only  to  himself  and  his 
blessed  Master,  for  his  doctrine  was  good  and  his 
outward  demeanour  comparatively  decent,  but  their 
open  ungodliness  and  monstrous  immorality.  And 
certainly,  if  a  bishop  is  required  to  be  blameless  in 
the  eyes  of  men  before  he  receives  his  commission, 
can  we  really  suppose  that  the  following  individuals, 
who  had  the  sole  power  of  ordaining  presbyters,  after 
they  were  raised  to  the  episcopate,  and  the  principal 
power  in  ordaining  prelates,  if  they  were  raised  to  the 
Popedom,  had  valid  orders,  or  could  preserve  the  suc- 
cession by  the  imposition  of  their  impious  and  polluted 
hands? 

So  depraved  was  the  state  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  year  500,  that  the  following  is  the  description 
which  is  given  of  it  by  Salvianus,  both  as  to  its  clergy 
and  laity :  "  We  who  are  good  Catholics,  love  un- 
cleanliness;  they  who  are  heretics,  (the  Arian  Goths,) 
abhor  and  detest  it;  we  hate  purity,  and  avoid  it; 
they  admire  and  embrace  it."*  And  so  fearful  was 
the  declension  of  religion  in  the  East,  that  in  the  year 
517,  Severus,  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  caused  three 
hundred  and  fifty  monks,  who  were  opposed  to  the 
Eutychian  doctrines,  to  be  massacred  by  a  band  of 
ruffians  whom  he  had  hired  for  the  purpose,  and  was 
never  called  to  an  account  for  it,  but  was  permitted 
to  lay  his  blood-stained  hands  on  the  heads  of  bishops 
and  presbyters.t    In  531,  Boniface  the  Second  ac- 


*  Bower,  vol.  ii.  p.  259. 


t  Bower,  vol.  ii.  p.  290. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


299 


knowledged,  before  a  great  Council  of  Bishops,  and 
the  whole  Roman  Senate,  that  he  had  been  guilty  of 
high  treason,  and  notwithstanding,  he  had  been  con- 
tinuing to  confer  orders.*  And  during  all  that  cen- 
tury a  number  of  bishops  were  chargeable  with  the 
greatest  enormities. 

It  has  been  alleged,  I  am  aware,  that  there  was  a 
female  Pope  of  the  most  dissolute  character  in  the 
ninth  century,  who  succeeded  Leo  the  Fourth  ;  and  it 
is  affirmed  by  Fox,  in  his  Book  of  Martyrs,  that, 
"for  five  hundred  years  after  her  time,  it  was  acknow- 
ledged as  an  historical  fact  of  as  great  notoriety  as 
any  other  connected  with  the  papal  chair. "t  I  am 
unwilling,  however,  to  found  on  it,  as  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  supported  by  sufficient  evidence,  the  ear- 
liest writers  who  relate  it  having  lived  two  hundred 
years  after  the  time  when  it  is  said  to  have  happened ; 
while  Anastasius,  who  seems  to  have  been  in  Rome 
at  the  death  of  Leo,  and  to  have  been  present  at  the 
election  of  his  successor,  says,  that  Benedict  the  Third 
was  chosen  in  his  room,  and  was  brought  immediately 
from  the  Church  of  St.  Callistus,  where  they  found 
him  at  his  prayers.  Besides,  Hincmar,  Archbishop 
of  Rheims,  informs  us  in  his  letters,  that  some  mes- 
sengers whom  he  had  dispatched  to  Leo,  to  procure 
a  grant  from  him,  found  that  he  was  dead,  but  ob- 
tained it  from  Benedict.  If  there  was  a  female  Pope, 
however,  and  if  she  reigned,  as  is  reported,  for  two 
years  and  five  months,  Hincmar's  messengers  must 
have  spent  all  that  time  in  their  journey,  which  is  in- 
credible, as  they  were  never  prevented  from  travelling 
by  any  obstacle.  And  the  existence  of  such  a  Pope 
was  never  once  referred  to  by  the  Patriarchs  of  the 
Eastern  Church,  in  all  their  attempts  to  resist  the 
claims  of  superintendence  over  them  by  the  subse- 
quent Popes,  as  would  certainly  have  been  the  case 
if  Pope  Joan  had  been  a  real  character.  But  while 
there  is  no  solid  foundation  for  that  degrading  charge 

*  Bower,  vol.  ii.  p.  329. 

t  From  what  Jewel  says  in  his  Apology,  p.  43,  it  would  seem  that 
he  also  believed  it. 


300 


LETTERS  ON 


against  the  See  of  Rome,  it  is  liable  to  others  nearly 
as  odious,  which  rest  upon  evidence  that  cannot  be 
controverted,  and  which  demonstrate  that  the  boasted 
apostolic  succession  has  utterly  failed.  "This,"  says 
Cardinal  Baronius,  when  speaking  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury, "  was  an  iron  age,  barren  of  all  goodness,  a 
leaden  age,  abounding  with  all  wickedness,  and  a 
dark  age,  remarkable  above  all  the  rest  for  the  scar- 
city of  writers  and  men  of  learning."  After  which 
he  adds,  "  The  abomination  of  desolation  was  seen  in 
the  temple  of  the  Lord;  and  in  the  See  of  St.  Peter, 
revered  by  the  angels,  were  placed  the  most  wicked 
of  men,  not  Pontiffs,  but  monsters.  And  how 
hideous  was  the  face  of  the  Roman  Church,  when 
filthy  and  impudent  strumpets  governed  all  at  Rome, 
changed  Sees  at  their  pleasure,  disposed  of  bishoprics, 
and  intruded  their  gallants  and  their  bullies  into  the 
See  of  St.  Peter,  who  were  written  in  the  catalogues 
of  Roman  Pontiffs  only  to  mark  time.  For  who 
could  assert  that  those  intruded  by  strumpets  of  this 
kind,  without  law,  were  legitimate  Roman  Pontiffs? 
No  mention  was  then  made  of  the  clergy  electing  or 
consenting.  The  Church  was  then  without  a  Pope, 
but  not  without  a  head,  its  spiritual  head  (Christ) 
never  abandoning  it."*  And  he  might  justly  say  so, 
for  in  the  year  904  Sergius  was  raised  to  the  Pope- 
dom, "  who  was  the  slave  of  every  vice,  and  the  most 
wicked  of  men  ;"t  and  who,  as  Luitprand  relates, 
had  John,  who  was  afterwards  Roman  Pontiff,  and 
the  twelfth  of  that  name,  by  Marozia,  the  wife  of 
Guido,  a  gay  and  most  impudent  courtezan, — and 
during  the  life  both  of  the  father  and  son,  (both  of 
whom  ordained  bishops  and  presbyters,)  the  whole 
Western  Church  and  the  city  of  Rome  was  governed 
by  this  strumpet. "J  And  the  same,  he  informs  us, 
was  the  power  of  Theodora,  "who  obtained  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter  to  John  of  Ravenna,  with  whom 
she  had  had  a  criminal  intrigue  ;"§  and  during  the 
time  of  his  primacy,  she  Avas  the  dispenser  of  the 

*  Baron,  ad  ann.  900.  t  Ibid,  ad  an.  908. 

t  Luitp.  lib.  ii.  cap.  13.  §  Ibid.  lib.  ii.  c.  13. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


301 


dignities  and  benefices  of  the  Church.  In  963,  John 
the  Twelfth,  to  whom  I  have  referred  formerly,  was 
condemned  by  a  Roman  Council  for  carrying  on  scan- 
dalous intrigues  with  four  different  females,  turning 
the  holy  palace  into  a  brothel,  putting  out  the  eyes 
of  Benedict,  his  ghostly  father,  who  died  of  anguish, 
setting  several  houses  on  fire,  drinking  wine  in  honor 
of  the  devil,  and  when  playing  at  dice,  invoking  Ju- 
piter, Venus,  and  the  other  pagan  deities,  and  all  the 
time  he  had  been  conferring  orders.  In  the  following 
century,  Gregory  the  Seventh,  denominated  Hilde- 
brand,  raised  himself  to  the  Popedom,  having  poi- 
soned, it  is  stated,  no  less  than  six  of  the  Pontiffs 
that  he  might  enjoy  that  honour ;  and  during  the 
whole  of  his  supremacy,  ignorance  and  wickedness 
overspread  the  Church.  From  the  beginning,  how- 
ever, of  the  twelfth  century,  her  situation,  if  possible, 
became  still  more  alarming.  "  Your  court,"  says 
St.  Bernard  to  the  Pope,  "  receives  good  men  some- 
times, but  it  makes  none  good:  evil  men  thrive 
there,  good  men  are  ruined.'1''  And  elsewhere  he 
says,  "  Those  bishops  to  whom  the  Church  of  God  is 
now  committed  are  not  teachers,  but  seducers ;  not 
pastors,  but  impostors ;  not  prelates,  but  Pilates."* 
And  yet  these  impostors  and  Pilates  were  the  men 
who  ordained  other  bishops. 

In  the  thirteenth  century  the  clergy  are  described 
by  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  in  a  sermon  which  he 
preached  even  before  the  Pope  himself,  as  not  only 
"  destroying  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord,  and  scattering 
pollution  over  every  land,"  but  as  most  luxurious, 
"  fornicators  above  all  others,  adulterous,  incestuous, 
epicures,  and  wallowing  in  every  species  of  iniquity."t 
It  is  asserted  also  by  Rubens,  that  "  they  were  not 
only  drunk  in  taverns,  but  kept  them  openly,  as  well 
as  concubines,  or  tavern  women  and  his  assertion 
is  confirmed  by  Frederick  of  Spain  and  John  of  Sicily, 

*  Jewel's  Apology,  p.  43,  64. 

t  Catalogus  Test.  p.  1592,  1593.  He  was  excommunicated  for  his 
sermon. 

t  Catalogus  Testium,  1249,  1254. 


302 


LETTERS  ON 


in  a  paper  which  has  been  preserved  by  Arnoldi  de 
Villa  Nova,  and  it  is  accompanied  by  the  statement  of 
some  additional  circumstances  so  exceedingly  gross, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  translate  them.*  "  You  have 
taken,"  said  the  Pope  in  1274,  to  Henry,  Bishop  of 
Liege  "  an  abbess  of  the  order  of  St.  Benedict  for  your 
concubine,  and  have  boasted  at  a  public  entertain- 
ment of  your  having  had  fourteen  children  in  the 
space  of  two  and  twenty  months.  To  some  of  your 
children  you  have  given  benefices,  and  even  entrusted 
them,  though  under  age, with  the  cure  of  souls.  The 
abbess  of  a  monastery  in  your  diocese  dying,  you 
annulled  the  canonical  election  of  another,  and  named 
in  her  room  the  daughter  of  a  count,  whose  son  has 
married  one  of  your  daughters,  and  it  is  said  that  the 
new  abbess  has  been  brought  to  bed  of  a  child  by 
you."t  And  while  we  are  told  by  Alvarus  Pelagius, 
that  in  the  fourteenth  century  "  idiots  were  made 
bishops;"  and  by  Maenard,  Count  of  the  Tyrol,  that 
"  the  prelates  were  worse  than  Turks,  Saracens,  Tar- 
tars or  Jews,":):  a  picture  is  presented  by  Wickliff  of 
the  manners  of  the  clergy,  which  it  is  impossible  to 
contemplate  without  loathing  and  disgust.  "  So  great," 
says  he,  in  his  Treatise  on  Hypocrisy,  "  is  the  corrup- 
tion of  manners  in  this  age,  and  such  its  licentiousness, 
that  the  priests  and  monks,  besides  violating  the  chas- 
tity of  married  women,  murdered  virgins  when  they 
were  unwilling  to  comply  with  their  solicitations. 
Their  sodomy,  moreover,  was  unbounded;  and  they 
boasted  to  those  whom  they  seduced  that  they  were 
able  to  pardon  them,  and  would  answer  for  their 
sins."§  And  towards  the  end  of  that  century,  Urban 
the  Sixth,  who  ordained  a  number  of  bishops,  besides 
his  other  shocking  crimes,  caused  five  of  his  cardinals 
to  be  "  shut  up  in  sacks,  and  thrown  into  the  sea,  or 

*  Catalogus  Testium,  p.  1659,  compared  with  p.  1735. 
t  Bower,  vol.  vi.  p.  295. 

t  Defensor  Paeis,  p.  364.  Pelagius  de  Planctu  Ecclesiae,  lib.  ii. 
cap.  3;  Catal.  Test.  p.  1810.  It  is  mentioned  that  "  there  were  few 
prelates  who  were  not  fornicators,  and  that  they  sat  in  public  with 
their  concubines,  and  sons  and  daughters." 

§  Catal.  Test.  p.  1814,  1815. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


303 


strangled  in  prison,  or  beheaded  and  their  bodies  to 
be  privately  conveyed  to  bis  stables,  and  consumed 
with  quick-lime;"  besides  whom,  it  is  mentioned  by 
Boxinsegni,  the  Florentine  historian,  who  wrote  soon 
afterwards,  that  five  eminent  prelates  were  put  to 
death  along  with  them  in  the  same  cruel  manner.* 
And  John  the  twenty-third,  who  was  obliged  to  resign, 
was  accused  before  the  Council  of  Constance  in  1414, 
(and  he  did  not  attempt  to  repel  the  charges,)  of  hav- 
ing been  of  a  wicked  disposition  from  his  childhood ; 
lewd,  dissolute,  a  liar,  and  addicted  almost  to  every 
vice;  of  having  raised  himself  to  the  Pontificate,  by 
causing  his  predecessor  to  be  poisoned;  and  of  having 
committed  fornication  with  maids,  adultery  with 
wives,  incest  with  his  brother's  wife,  and  with  nuns," 
(in  some  MSS.  with  300.)  And  the  memorial  con- 
cluded with  these  words:  "He  is  universally  looked 
upon,  as  will  be  found  on  the  slightest  inquiry,  as  the 
sink  of  vice,  the  enemy  of  all  virtue,  the  mirror  of 
infamy;  and  all  who  know  him  speak  of  him  as  a 
devil  incarnate. "t  And  yet  he  also  gave,  orders  to 
many  bishops  and  presbyters.  And  while  Innocent 
the  Eighth  is  represented  by  Marullus  as  having  left 
a  number  of  natural  children,  it  is  stated  by  Burchard 
that  Alexander  the  Sixth,  who  held  the  Popedom  for 
more  than  eleven  years,  and  must  have  made  a  num- 
ber of  prelates  who  ordained  others,  "  was  a  great 
lover  of  women,  and  that  in  his  time  the  apostolic 
palace  was  turned  into  a  brothel,  a  more  infamous 
brothel  than  any  other  in  Rome."  And  he  mentions 
"  an  entertainment  given  in  the  palace  to  fifty  of  the 
most  noted  courtezans  in  the  city,"  and  describes  a 
variety  of  particulars  that  took  place,  to  which  I  can- 
not make  even  the  slightest  allusion.!  If  these  things, 
however,  were  so,  (and  they  were  attested  by  men 
whose  veracity  is  unquestionable,  and  who  not  only 
had  the  best  opportunities  to  be  acquainted  with  the 
facts,  but  were  zealous  members  of  the  Church  of 

*  Bower,  vol.  vii.  p.  62,  63. 

t  Bower,  vol.  vii.  p.  166,  167.         t  Ibid.  vol.  vii.  p.  368. 


304  LETTERS  OX  FUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


Rome.)  I  would  ask  any  candid  and  impartial  judge, 
whether  he  really  thinks  that  men  like  these  could 
preserve  the  succession?  Their  own  orders,  as  we 
have  seen,  were  purchased  with  money,  and  conse- 
quently were  void.*  And  so  far  from  possessing  the 
character  of  true  prophets,  and  exhibiting  their  fruits, 
(Matt.  vii.  15-20,)  they  are  described  by  those  who 
would  not  misrepresent  them,  "  as  murderers,  adulte- 
rers, sodomites,  incestuous  persons,  Pilates,  impostors, 
the  abomination  of  desolation,  sinks  of  vice,  monsters 
of  iniquity,  and  devils  incarnate."  Surely  orders 
obtained  from  such  men,  by  the  imposition  of  their 
foul  and  polluted  hands,  and  whose  own  orders 
laboured  under  a  fatal  defect,  could  not  be  valid,  and 
those  who  received  them  could  not  give  valid  orders 
to  others.  And  as  this  happened  not  merely  in  a  few, 
but  in  thousands  of  instances  during  a  succession  of 
ages,  partly  in  the  Eastern,  but  more  frequently  and 
extensively  in  the  Western  Church,  it  follows  upon 
your  principles  and  those  of  the  Papists,  that  neither 
of  these  Churches  in  the  present  day,  nor  any  Church 
connected  with  them,  or  descended  from  them,  can  be 
entitled  to  the  character  of  a  Christian  Church,  nor  can 
any  of  its  members  have  the  smallest  hope  that  he 
shall  be  permitted  to  share  in  the  blessings  of  salva- 
tion. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  This  argument  for  the  invalidity  of  their  orders  is  drawn  not 
merely  from  one,  but  the  whole  of  the  leading  points  referred  to  in 
this  letter. 


305 


LETTER  XIX. 

The  Bible  the  only  standard  by  which  we  are  to  regulate  our  opinions  re- 
specting faith  and  practice,  the  orders  in  the  ministry,  and  the  rites  and 
ordinances  uf  the  Christian  Church. — This  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  itself, 
and  of  the  early  Fathers,  each  of  whom  rejected  the  opinions  of  the  other 
Fathers  on  every  subject  when  not  supported  by  Scripture,  or  when  con- 
trary to  its  statements. — This  the  doctrine,  too,  of  Luther,  and  of  the  most 
eminent  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England. — The  Fathers  not  sate 
euides  respecting  the  meaning  of  Scripture  on  other  subjec  ts  besides 
Church  government. — Numerous  instances  of  the  gross  misinterpretation 
of  the  plainest  passages  in  the  writings  of  Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr,  Ire- 
naeus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Jerome. 
— Numerous  instances  also  of  their  depariing  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles  on  some  of  the  leading  points  of  evangelical  belief,  atid  of  their 
introducing  into  the  Church  superstitious  rites  and  idolatrous  observances. 
— This  acknowledged  by  Whitgift  and  Cox. — Presumptive  proof  which  it 
presents  that  they  might  depart  as  far  from  the  original  form  of  ecclesiastical 
government  which  was  appointed  for  the  Church. 

Reverend  Sir, — If  I  have  succeeded,  in  a  previous 
part  of  these  letters,  in  proving,  according  to  the  opin- 
ion of  Wickliff,  and  other  distinguished  individuals 
before  the  Reformation,  of  your  most  eminent  bishops 
at  that  memorable  era,*  and  of  the  eight  thousand 

*  The  present  curate  of  Derry,  in  his  Treatise  on  Episcopacy  and 
Presbytery,  p.  43,  maintains,  that  as  it  is  said  in  the  Ordinal,  "  it  is 
evident  unto  all  men  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that 
from  the  Apostles'  time  there  hath  been  three  orders  of  ministers  in 
Christ's  Church,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,"'  the  early  Reformers 
of  the  Church  of  England  believed  in  the  divine  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy. This,  however,  is  an  inference  which  is  opposed  to  their  avow- 
ed sentiments  before  quoted,  p.  98,  99,  where  they  declare,  that 
"  bishops  and  priests  were  no  two  things,  but  botli  one  thing  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  Besides,  they  do  not  say  that  these 
orders  existed  in  the  Apostles'  time,  but  from  or  soon  after  the  Apos- 
tles' time,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Jerome,  in  which  Tonstal, 
Stokesley  and  Dr.  Cox  (p.  98)  expressed  their  concurrence.  And 
though  the  Reformatio  Legum  Ecclcsiasticarum  points  out  in  different 
sections  the  duties  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  this  was  absolutely 
necessary,  since  these  orders  were  to  be  retained  in  the  Church  of 
England,  but  is  no  more  a  proof  that  they  were  regarded  as  of  divine 
institution,  than  its  proposing  to  introduce  a  class  of  men  into  that 
Church,  like  Presbyterian  ruling  elders,  (see  cap.  viii.  10,)  would 
have  been  a  proof  to  Mr.  Boyd,  that  these  office-bearers  were  regard, 
ed  as  entitled  to  lay  claim  to  a  similar  origin. 

He  says  in  regard  to  Stillingflect,  that  he  adopted  views  afterwards 
different  from  those  which  he  defended  in  his  Irenicum,  and  quotes 
from  him,  p.  50,  these  doleful  expressions,  "  Will  you  not  allow  one 

20 


306 


LETTERS  OX 


ministers  who  subscribed  the  Articles  of  the  League 
of  Smalkald,  as  well  as  the  Confessions  of  the  foreign 
Protestant  Churches,  that  diocesan  Episcopacy  is  not 

single  person  who  happened  to  write  about  these  matters,  when  he 
was  very  young,  in  twenty  years  time  of  the  most  busy  and  thought- 
ful part  of  his  life  to  see  reason  to  alter  his  judgment  ?"  Now,  cer- 
tainly we  have  no  right  to  deny  that  he  was  entitled  to  alter  his  judg- 
ment after  he  was  made  a  bishop ;  but,  as  he  did  not  answer  the 
arguments  by  which  he  supported  his  former  opinion,  and  as  no  one 
has  since  done  it,  and  Mr.  Boyd  has  not  even  attempted  it,  he  must 
excuse  us  for  bringing  them  again  under  his  (Mr.  Boyd's)  notice,  and 
that  of  the  other  defenders  of  Episcopacy,  and  calling  upon  them  to 
answer  them. 

He  complains  that  Presbyterians,  when  quoting  the  first  part  of 
Bishop  Bedell's  Reply  to  Waddington,  the  Papist,  in  which  he  admits, 
that  "  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  all  one,  as  St.  Jerome  maintains 
and  proves  out  of  Holy  Scripture  and  all  antiquity,"  leave  out  the  lat- 
ter part.  The  latter  part,  however,  relates  to  a  totally  different  sub- 
ject ;  and  as  the  former  was  adduced  merely  to  show  that  Bishop 
Bedell  did  not  consider  Episcopacy  as  of  divine  right,  (and  this  was 
clearly  his  opinion,)  it  was  all  that  was  required,  and  there  was  no 
occasion  in  settling  that  point  to  refer  to  the  other. 

He  says,  p.  45,  that  when  the  Reformers  of  the  English  Church 
contended  for  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  it  was  the  old 
opinion  which  they  entertained  as  Papists,  and  which  was  adopted 
by  many  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  consequence  of 
their  believing  in  transubstantiation.  For  "  it  was  held  inconsistent 
to  allow  that  the  priest  could  transmute  the  elements  into  Deity,  and 
yet  be  inferior  to  any  in  ecclesiastical  standing."  The  same  asser- 
tion was  made  long  ago  by  Downam,  who  says,  in  the  Defence  of  his 
Sermons,  p.  104,  "This  new  Popish  conceipt  of  confounding  bishops 
and  presbvters  into  one  order  ariseth  from  their  idol  of  the  masse,  and 
their  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  whereby  every  priest  is  as  able  to 
make  his  Maker  as  the  Pope  himself."  Jerome,  however,  did  not  be- 
lieve in  transubstantiation,  and  wrote  eight  hundred  years  before  it 
was  introduced  into  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  yet  he  represents  it  as 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same. 
Atto,  Bishop  of  Verceil,  who  lived  two  hundred  years  before  transub- 
stantiation was  adopted  into  the  creed  of  that  Church,  denied  the 
divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  The  Culdee  presbyters,  who  never  em- 
braced that  doctrine,  ordained  presbyters  and  bishops.  Nay,  the 
Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent,  who  were  zealous  for  transubstan- 
tiation, instead  of  holding,  as  we  would  naturally  have  expected,  upon 
Mr.  Boyd's  hypothesis,  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  main- 
tained the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  pronounced  an 
anathema  against  all  who  denied  it,  while  Wickliff,  Armacanus,  and 
all  who  were  zealous  for  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  asserted,  that 
according  to  Scripture  there  was  no  difference  between  bishops  and 
presbyters.  So  contrary  to  the  fact  is  the  account  which  was  long 
ago  given  by  Downam,  and  which  is  repeated  by  the  present  curate 
ofDerry,  of  the  circumstances  which  led  the  first  Reformers  to  avow 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


307 


sanctioned  by  Scripture,  but  is  of  mere  human  origin, 
I  might  pass  over  in  silence  the  argument  in  support 
of  it,  which  has  been  derived  from  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers.  Though  the  latter  may  illustrate  the 
statements  of  the  Bible,  on  any  subject,  as  far  as  they 
correspond  with  it,  they  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  usurp 
its  place,  nor  to  add  to  what  it  announces  a  single  ar- 
ticle of  religious  belief  which  we  are  bound  to  em- 
brace, or  a  single  precept  which  we  are  bound  to  obey, 
or  a  single  order  in  the  Christian  ministry  which  we 
are  bound  to  adopt,  or  a  single  branch  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Church  whfch  we  are  bound  to  receive. 
"  The  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,"  in  all  these  respects, 
"  is  the  religion  of  Protestants;"  and  it  alone  is  "  able 
to  make  them  perfect,  and  furnish  them  thoroughly 
for  every  good  word  and  every  good  work."  And 
"to  the  law  and  the  testimony:"  if  any  thing  which 
is  propounded  to  us  on  any  subject  speak  not  accord- 
ing to  their  word,  "  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  it." 

And  as  such  is  the  principle  by  which  we  must 
regulate  our  opinions,  if  we  believe  in  the  explicit 
declarations  of  Scripture  respecting  its  own  perfection, 
and  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  so  it  is  the 
only  principle  by  which  Christians  in  general,  from 
the  earliest  ages,  have  formed  their  opinions  on  every 
part  of  religious  truth.  It  was  the  principle,  for 
instance,  by  which  the  ancient  fathers  judged  of  every 
thing  which  was  contained  in  the  writings  of  others 
of  the  fathers.  "  Deare  brother,"  said  Augustine  to 
Jerome,  (and  I  choose  rather  to  quote  him  in  the 
translation  of  Frith,  one  of  your  Martyrs,  p.  53  of  his 
works,)  I  thinke  that  you  will  not  have  your  bookes 
reputed  like  unto  the  workes  of  the  Prophetes  and 
Apostles;  for  I  {the  Scripture  reserved)  do  read  all 
other  men's  workes  on  that  maner,  that  I  doe  not 
beleve  them,  because  the  author  so  sayth,be  he  never 
so  well  learned  and  holy,  except  that  he  can  certifie 
me  by  the  Scripture,  or  cleare  reason  that  he  sayth 

their  belief  of  the  latter  opinion ,  and  it  is  the  more  reprehensible  in 
him,  (Mr.  Boyd,)  as  he  ought  unquestionably  to  have  known  that  they 
appeal  in  support  of  it  to  Scripture. 


SOS 


LETTERS  OX 


true.  And  even  so  would  I,  that  other  men  should 
read  my  bookes  as  I  read  theirs.""  And  again  ob- 
serves Jewel,  in  his  Defense  of  his  Apology,  p.  59, 
"Joining  all  the  doctours  and  fathers  together,  he 
saith  thus,  Ipse  mihi pro  omnibus,  $?c.  Instead  of  all 
these  learned  fathers,  or  rather  above  them  all,  Paul 
the  Apostle  commeth  to  myminde.  To  him  I  runne; 
to  him  I  appeale  from  all  maner  writers,  (doctours 
and  fathers.)  that  think  otherwise."  "It  is  necessary 
for  us,"  says  Origen,  "to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  for 
our  senses  and  interpretations  without  these  witnesses 
are  not  entitled  to  credit. "t  "There  are  others,"  says 
Jerome,  "who  have  erred  in  the  faith,  both  Greeks 
and  Latins,  whose  names  I  need  not  mention,  lest  I 
seem  to  defend  him,  (Origen,)  not  by  his  own  merits, 
but  by  the  mistakes  of  others."!  And  in  another 
place  he  remarks,  "  I  think  that  Origen  ought  to  be 
read  on  account  of  his  erudition,  as  well  as  Tertullian, 
Novatus,  Arnobius,  Apollinaris,  and  some  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  both  Greeks  and  Latins,  that  ice  may 
choose  from  them  ichat  is  good,  and  avoid  what  is 
bad,  according  to  the  injunction  of  the  Apostle,  Prove 
all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."||  It  was  the 
principle  by  which  Luther  and  the  foreign  Reformers, 
who  were  honoured  to  bear  such  a  distinguished  part 
in  discovering,  declaring,  and  vindicating  the  truth  on 
the  most  important  subjects,  judged  what  they  met 
with  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  «  I  follow  Au- 
gustine," said  the  first  of  these  great  and  holy  men, 
"when  he  agrees  with  the  Scripture,  and  leave  him 
when  he  falls  short  of  it,  or  goes  against  or  beyond  it. 
In  matters  affecting  conscience  I  regard  the  word  of 
no  man,  but  of  God  alone. "§  And  the  same  was  the 
principle  which  guided  your  Reformers  in  forming 

*  Epist.  ad  Haer.  torn.  ii.  fol.  14. 
t  Tom.  i.  p.  628. 

t  "Erraverunt  in  fide  alii,"  &c.    Epist  65,  ad  Pam. 
II  Epist.  76,  ad  Tranquil. 

V^equor  Augustinum  ubi  cum  Scriptura  sentit,  et  relinquosi  citra 
vel  contra  Scripturam  loquitur.  In  re  conscientiarum  nullius  hominis 
sed  solius  Dei  amplector."    Seckendort",  lib.  i.  p.  283. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY". 


309 


their  opinion  of  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  and  which, 
as  stated  by  Hooper  in  the  following  passages,  is 
worthy  of  the  grave  and  serious  consideration  of 
every  Episcopalian,  when,  after  failing  to  establish 
his  particular  views  of  ecclesiastical  polity  from  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  he  attempts  to  prop  them  by  quota- 
tions from  the  fathers.  "  The  water  at  the  fountane 
hed,"  says  he,  "is  more  halsome  and  pure  then  when 
it  is  caryd  abrode  in  roten  pypes.  I  had  rather  folow 
the  shadow  of  Christ  then  the  body  of  all  generall 
conselles  or  doctors  sith  the  death  of  Christe.  The 
verite  of  Christe's  religion  was  perfet  in  Chryste's 
tyme,  and  in  the  tyme  of  the  Apostelles.  None  sith 
that  time  so  pure.  Saynct  Hierome,  in  Vita  Malchi, 
saith  that  his  time  was  darkenys  in  the  respect  of  the 
Apostelles'  tyme."  And  again  he  remarks,  "Basilius, 
Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Augustine,  Bernerd  and  others, 
thoughe  they  stayed  themselves  in  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  and  erryd  not  in  ony  principall  article  of  the 
faythe,  yet  they  did  inordinatly  and  more  than 
inoughe  extolle  the  doctrine  and  tradicion  of  men, 
and  after  the  deathe  of  the  Apostellis,  every  doctor's 
tyme  was  subject  unto  such  ceremonye  and  mannes' 
decrees,  that  was  neither  profetable  nor  necessari." 
After  which  he  adds,  "  The  Scripture  soly,  and  the 
Apostelles'  Churche  is  to  be  foloivyd,  and  no  man's 
authority.  Be  he  Augustine,  Tertullian,  or  other 
Cherubim  or  Seraphim,  unto  the  rules  and  canones  of 
the  Scripture  must  man  trust,  and  reforme  his  errores 
therby,or  else  he  shall  not  reform  himselfe,  but  rather 
deform  his  consciens."* 

But  while  such  is  the  principle  by  which  enlighten- 
ed Christians  in  every  age  have  been  led  to  estimate 
the  opinions  of  the  fathers,  and  while  we  ought  not  to 
receive  a  single  point  of  religious  belief,  or  rite,  or 
article  which  relates  to  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
Church,  though  it  may  have  been  held  in  their  days, 
unless  it  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  yet  I  shall  wave 
this  circumstance,  and  consider  the  argument  which 

*  Declaration  of  Christ  and  his  Offices,  chap,  iv, 


310 


LETTERS  ON 


has  been  drawn  from  their  writings.  And  there  is 
certainly  none  to  which  some  at  least  of  the  advocates 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy  attach  greater  weight;  for 
they  represent  them  as  delivering  a  united  testimony 
to  its  existence  in  the  Church  from  the  earliest  ages; 
and  from  the  peculiar  advantages  which  they  imagine 
were  possessed  by  many  of  the  fathers  for  interpreting 
aright  the  statements  of  Scripture,  and  the  great  im- 
probability of  their  deviating  in  the  least  from  that 
form  of  polity  which  was  approved  of  by  the  Apos- 
tles, they  look  upon  it  as  absolutely  decisive  of  the 
question.  Now,  upon  this  boasted  argument,  which 
has  frequently  been  urged  with  the  greatest  triumph 
by  the  friends  of  Episcopacy,  I  beg  to  submit  to  you 
the  following  observations: 

In  the  first  place,  the  superior  qualifications  of  these 
early  writers  to  interpret  correctly  the  statements  of 
Scripture  on  the  subject  in  dispute  will  be  best  ascer- 
tained by  examining  their  expositions  of  a  variety  of 
passages  on  other  subjects.  I  have  referred  already 
to  some  of  them  in  my  eleventh  letter,  but  in  addition 
to  these  I  would  select  the  following:  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  one  of  the  most  ancient 
of  these  writers,  for  it  is  allowed  by  Bishop  Tomline, 
Dr.  Cave,  Archbishop  Wake,  and  Bishop  Pearson, 
that  he  was  the  fellow-labourer  of  the  Apostles.'  He 
tells  us  that  "  the  three  young  men  who  were  to 
sprinkle  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  (Numb,  xix.) 
denoted  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  because  they 
were  great  before  God;  and  that  the  wool  was  to  be 
put  upon  wood,  because  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  was  to 
be  founded  upon  wood,  or  upon  the  cross;"t  that  the 
precept,  "  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  the  hyena,  signifies, 
thou  shalt  not  be  an  adulterer,  because  that  animal 
every  year  changes  its  sex,  and  is  sometimes  male. 
sometimes  female;  and  that  the  precept,  thou  shalt 
not  eat  of  the  weazel,  suggests  that  wickedness  should 

*  Preface  to  Tomline's  Elements,  vol.  i.  p.  18.  Hist-  Liter,  p.  11, 
12.  Discourse  on  the  Genuine  Epistles  of  the  Apost.  Fathers,  p.  69, 
70.    Lect.  Secund.  in  Act. 

t  Clerici  Patres,  vol.  i.  p.  25. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


311 


not  be  committed  with  the  mouth,  because  that 
animal  conceives  with  its  mouth."*  Take  Justin 
Martyr,  who  considers  these  expressions  respecting 
Judah,  (Gen.  xlix.  11,)  "He  washed  his  garments  in 
wine,  and  his  clothes  in  the  blood  of  grapes,"  as  a 
prediction  respecting  the  death  of  Christ,  and  who 
finds  out  a  reason  for  the  form  of  the  cross  on  which 
he  was  appointed  to  suffer,  in  the  sails  of  ships,  in  the 
plough,  in  the  shape  of  our  bodies,  and  in  the  horn  of 
the  unicorn.t  Take  Irenaeus,  who  says  "  that  the 
name  Jesus,  in  Hebrew,  is  composed  of  two  letters 
and  a  half,  and  signifies  the  heavens;"  that  "  the 
twopence  or  denarii  which  were  left  by  the  good 
Samaritan  with  the  host  who  was  to  take  care  of  the 
man  who  fell  among  thieves,  were  the  image  and 
superscription  of  the  Father  and  the  Son;  and  that  the 
unclean  animals  which  did  not  divide  the  hoof  were 
those  which  were  destitute  of  faith,  and  who  did  not 
meditate  on  the  oracles  of  God. "J  Take  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  who  informs  us  that  "  the  conduct  of 
the  Saviour  is  always  straight  and  agreeable  to  his 
nature,  as  is  intimated  by  the  letter  Iota  in  the  name 
Jesus;  that  in  these  words  of  the  first  Psalm, '  He 
shall  be  as  a  tree  planted  by  the  rivers  of  water,  which 
yieldeth  its  fruit  in  its  season,  and  whose  leaf  shall  not 
fail,'  there  is  a  reference  to  the  resurrection,  rte.os  tqv 
uvas-affiv  qvitci-to •  that  the  feet  of  Christ,  which  the 
woman  anointed,  (Luke  vii.)  denoted  his  divine  doc- 
trine, which  travelled  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  with  distinguished  glory;"  and  that  marriage  is 
proper,  because,  when  our  Lord  says,  (Mat.  xviii.) 
that  "  where  two  or  three  meet  in  his  name,  he  will 
be  in  the  midst  of  them,  it  means  a  man,  his  wife  and 
his  child,  av&en  jcai  ywaixa  xai  tcxvov.''^  Take  Ter- 
tullian,  who  says  that  the  mark  which  Ezekiel  was  to 

*  I  cannot  insert  what  follows,  as  it  is  so  grossly  offensive  to  every 
delicate  mind. 

+  Dialog,  cum  Trypho.  p.  40 ;  Second  Apol.  p.  38 ;  Dial.  p.  70. 
t  Lib.  ii.  cap.  41,  De  Haer.;  lib.  iii.  cap.  19  ;  lib.  v.  cap.  8. 
§  Paedag.  lib.  i.  cap.  9,  p.  93,  94;  ibid.  lib.  i.  cap.  10,  p.  96  ;  ibid, 
lib.  ii.  cap.  8,  p.  129.    Stromata,  lib.  iii.  p.  331. 


312 


LETTERS  OX 


put  on  the  foreheads  of  the  men  who  sighed  and  cried 
in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem  "  was  the  letter  Tau,  or  the 
sign  of  the  cross;  that  the  reason  why  the  Israelites 
overcame  the  Amalekites,  was  because  Moses  lifted 
up  his  hands  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  they  were 
commanded  by  one  whose  name  was  Jesus  or  Joshua; 
that  it  is  the  Saviour  who  is  spoken  of,  Deut.  xxxiii. 
17,  when  it  is  said,  •'  His  glory  is  like  the  firstling  of 
his  bullock,  and  his  horns  are  like  the  horns  of  uni- 
corns, and  that  with  them  he  shall  push  the  people 
together  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,'  because  the  horns  of 
the  bull  resemble  the  two  extended  arms  of  the  cross; 
and  that  by  Simeon  and  Levi,  who  are  mentioned, 
Gen.  xlix.  5,  we  are  to  understand  the  scribes  and 
pharisees  who  were  to  persecute  Christ."*  And 
omitting  the  vision  of  Hernias  and  other  early  writ- 
ings, on  which  I  am  unwilling  to  enlarge,  consider  out 
of  the  many  passages  which  might  be  selected  from 
Origen  what  he  says  of  the  servants  of  Isaac,  who 
contended  with  the  Philistines,  "  whom  he  affirms  to 
have  been  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John;"  and 
the  proof  which  is  produced  by  Cyprian  to  show  that 
the  Redeemer  is  God's  hand  from  these  words,  "  Is 
God's  hand  weak  that  it  cannot  save?"  (Is.  lix.  1-4.) 
That  the  Jews  would  fasten  him  to  the  cross  from 
these  passages;  "  I  have  spread  out  my  hands  all  the 
day  unto  a  rebellious  people,"  (Is.  lxv.  2.)  "  Thy  life 
shall  hang  in  doubt  before  thine  eyes,  and  thou  shalt 
fear  day  and  night,  and  shalt  have  none  assurance  of 
thy  life,"  (Deut.  xxviii.  66 ;)  and  "  that  they  would  not 
understand  the  Scriptures,"  because  Paul  says,  (1 
Cor.  x.  1,)  'I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud.'  "t  And 
reflect  only  further  on  what  is  said  by  Jerome,  can.  3, 
in  Mat.  vi.  26,  where  he  maintains  very  gravely, 
"  that  by  the  fowls  of  the  air,  who  neither  reap  nor 
gather  into  barns,  we  are  to  understand  the  devils; 
and  that  by  the  lilies  of  the  field,  which  neither  toil 

*  Lib.  iii.  contra  Marcion,  p.  S13.    Lib.  advers.  Judaeos.'p.  169. 
T  Orig.  torn.  i.  p.  44.    Cyprian's  Testimonies  against  the  Jews,  p. 
26,  41,  56. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


313 


nor  spin,  are  meant  the  angels."  Are  these  then  the 
men,  I  ask  now,  as  I  inquired  formerly,  when  I  wrote 
the  article  from  which  I  have  taken  a  number  of 
these  extracts,*  (and  I  might  have  given  a  thousand 
other  instances,)  "  who  have  interpreted  so  correctly 
the  word  of  God;  and  is  it  to  them  that  we  are  to  look 
up  with  such  submission  and  respect,  when  they  point 
out  to  us  from  Scripture  either  the  articles  of  our  faith," 
or  the  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  which 
the  blessed  Redeemer  has  appointed  to  his  Church? 

It  may  be  alleged,  however,  that  though  their  inter- 
pretation of  these  passages  is  extremely  absurd,  and 
displays  an  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures 
which  is  seldom  to  be  met  with  in  Protestant  coun- 
tries in  the  present  day,  yet  the  errors  into  which  they 
fell  when  they  delivered  these  expositions  are  of  in- 
ferior moment;  and  it  will  by  no  means  follow  that 
they  erred  as  to  doctrine,  or  deviated  from  that  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  which  was  sanctioned  by  the 
Apostles.  "  As  the  three  authors,"  says  Bishop  Rus- 
sel,  "  from  whose  writings  I  have  quoted,  were  dis- 
ciples of  the  Apostles,  lived  in  their  society,  knew 
their  doctrines  and  their  views  in  regard  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Church,  we  cannot  permit  ourselves  to 
imagine  that  they  would  sanction  a  polity  which  had 
not  the  example  and  approbation  of  those  heavenly 
teachers  to  support  it.  It  is  universally  allowed  among 
the  earliest  Christian  writers,  that  Ignatius  and  Poly- 
carp  were  ordained  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles;  and 
St.  Paul  himself  informs  us,  that  Clemens  was  a  fellow- 
labourer  with  him  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Are  we 
not  then  entitled  to  regard  the  model  of  ecclesiastical 
constitution  which  these  holy  men  adopted,  as  pos- 
sessing the  full  authority  and  sanction  of  their  inspired 
masters  ?  Or  must  we  believe,  that,  under  the  very 
eye  of  those  from  whom  they  received  their  knowledge 
of  the  faith — the  immediate  and  personal  servants 
of  the  Redeemer — those  divine  commissioners  upon 

*  Review  of  Bishop  Tomline's  Refutation  of  Calvinism  in  the  Edin- 
burgh Christian  Instructor,  vol.  iv.  p.  394,  395,  which  I  published 
many  years  ago. 


314 


LETTERS  ON 


whom  the  foundations  of  the  Church  were  laid,  they 
deviated  from  the  pattern  with  which  they  were  thus 
supplied,  and  constructed  a  system  according  to  their 
own  views  or  convenience?"*  And  in  the  following 
page,  he  endeavours  to  show  that  it  is  equally  impro- 
bable that  Irenaeus,  "  who  lived  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  and  who,  as  he  himself  tells  us, 
was  acquainted  with  Polycarp,  and  heard  him  preach," 
would  depart  from  the  polity  which  had  been  approved 
by  the  Apostles ;  and  the  same  reasoning  has  been 
applied  to  the  fathers,  even  in  the  days  of  Cyprian. 

I  shall  by  and  by  inquire  into  the  amount  of  supe- 
riority ascribed  to  bishops  in  the  writings  of  these 
fathers,  and  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  it  will  avail 
but  little  for  promoting  the  cause  of  diocesan  Epis- 
copacy. But  at  present  I  content  myself  with  meeting 
the  statement  of  the  extreme  improbability  of  their 
departing  in  the  least  from  the  form  of  polity  which 
was  approved  by  the  Apostles  by  a  similar  statement 
of  an  equal  improbability,  that  they  would  depart 
from  the  doctrines,  and  rites,  and  practices  which  had 
received  the  sanction  of  these  illustrious  ministers. 
And  if  it  shall  be  found  upon  inquiry,  (and  it  is  a 
question  of  fact,)  that  they  departed  in  a  short  time 
from  a  number  of  the  latter,  it  will  appear  equally 
credible,  since  we  are  told  by  Paul  that  "  the  mystery 
of  iniquity  had  begun  to  work"  even  in  his  day,  that 
they  might,  to  a  small  extent  during  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, deviate  from  the  former. 

Now,  it  is  plain  that  they  departed  at  an  early 
period  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  on  several 
important  points.  When  Cecil  accordingly  wrote  to 
Cox  to  assist  Elizabeth  with  his  advice  about  the 
perusal  of  the  fathers,  the  bishop  replied,  that  "  when 
all  is  done,  the  Scripture  is  that  that  pearseth.  Chry- 
sostom  and  the  Greek  fathers  favour  Pelagius;  Ber- 
nard sometimes  is  for  monkery;  and  he  trusted  her 
Grace  meddled  with  them  but  at  spare  hours."t  And 

*  Historical  Evidence  of  the  Apostolical  Institution  of  Episcopacy, 
p.  27,  28. 

t  Strype's  Annals,  vol.  i.  p.  324. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


315 


said  Whitgift  in  his  Answer  to  Cartwright,  p.  472, 
"  My  comparison  of  the  Church  of  England  with  the 
fathers  shall  consist  in  these  three  points,  truth  of  doc- 
trine, honesty  of  life,  and  right  use  of  external  things. 
Touching  the  fyrst,  that  is,  truth  of  doctrine,  I  shall 
not  need  much  to  labour;  for  I  think  T.  C.  and  his 
adherents  will  not  deny,  but  that  the  doctrine  taught 
and  professed  by  our  bishops  at  this  day  is  much 
more  perfect  and  sounder  than  it  commonly  was  in 
any  age  after  the  Apostles'1  time.  For  the  most  part 
of  the  auncientest  bishops  were  deceyved  with  that 
grosse  opinion  of  a  thousande  yeares  after  the  resur- 
rection, wherein  the  kingdome  of  Christe  should  here 
remaine  upon  earth,  the  fauvorers  whereof  were  called 
Millenarii.  Cyprian  and  the  whole  Council  of  Car- 
thage erred  in  re-baptization.  And  Cyprian  himself 
also  was  greatly  overseene  in  making  it  a  matter  so 
necessarie  in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  to 
have  water  mingled  with  wyne,  which  was  no  doubt 
at  that  tyme  common  to  moe  than  to  him.  But  the 
other  opinion  which  he  confuteth,  of  usyng  water 
only,  is  more  absurd,  and  yet  it  had  at  that  tyme 
patrones  among  the  bishops."  And  it  is  impossible 
to  look  into  the  writings  of  the  fathers  without  perceiv- 
ing the  unsoundness  of  many  of  their  opinions.  Justin 
Martyr,  for  instance,  asserts  that  demons  were  the 
offspring  of  women  who  had  connection  with  angels; 
and  he  asserts,  that  the  spirits  of  the  saints,  and  even 
of  the  ancient  prophets  who  died  before  the  coming  of 
the  Saviour,  were  under  the  power  of  these  demons ; 
"  in  potestatem  venisse  talium  virtutum ;"  and  that 
therefore,  when  Christ  was  dying,  he  commended  his 
spirit  to  his  heavenly  Father.*  And  he  believed  very 
firmly  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Millennium,  as  it  was 
taught  by  Papias,  of  which  the  following  account  is 
delivered  by  Irenaeus,  and  it  is  certainly  most  unlike 
to  what  was  learned  from  the  Apostles.  "  The  days," 
said  he,  "  will  come,  in  which  there  shall  grow  vine- 
yards, having  each  10,000  stocks;  and  each  stock, 

*  First  Apol.  p.  7,  and  Second  Apol.  p.  15.  Dialog,  cum  Trypho. 
p.  79,  80;  ibid.  p.  63. 


316 


LETTERS  ON 


10,000  branches;  each  branch,  10,000  shoots;  each 
shoot,  10,000  bunches;  each  bunch,  10,000  grapes, 
and  each  grape  squeezed  shall  yield  twenty-five  mea- 
sures of  wine;  and  when  any  of  the  saints  shall  go 
to  pluck  a  bunch,  another  bunch  will  cry  out,  I  am  a 
better,  take  me,  and  bless  the  Lord  through  me.  In 
like  manner,  a  grain  of  wheat  sown  shall  bear  10,000 
stalks;  each  stalk,  10,000  grains;  and  each  grain, 
10,000  lbs.  of  the  finest  flour;  and  so  all  other  fruits, 
seeds  and  herbs  in  the  same  proportion.  These  words 
Papias,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  companion  of  Poly- 
carp,  an  ancient  man,  testifies  in  writing  in  his  fourth 
book,  and  adds,  that  they  are  credible  to  those  who 
believe."  Irenaeus  asserts  that  the  Saviour  lived 
upon  earth  "  forty  or  fifty  years;"  and  says  that  this 
is  not  only  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  but  was  even 
reported  by  the  elders  who  had  been  acquainted  with 
St.  John  to  have  been  declared  by  that  Jlpostle  ;  that 
Enoch,  before  he  was  translated,  was  employed  by 
God  on  a  mission  to  the  a?igels ;  "  Dei  legatione  ad 
Angelos  fungebatur ;"  (and  the  Commentaries  of  Cy- 
ril, Lyra  and  Feuardentius,  who  would  understand 
by  the  angels  the  antediluvian  giants,  are  contra- 
dicted by  the  expressions  that  follow;)  and  that  the 
souls  of  the  dead  depart  into  an  invisible  place  which 
is  appointed  for  them  by  God,  and  remain  there  till 
the  resurrection,  when  they  are  admitted  into  heaven.* 
Very  grievous  errors  were  maintained  by  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  one  of  the  best  of  the  fathers.  Though 
he  acknowledges  in  one  passage  that  "  we  are  alto- 
gether corrupt  by  nature,"  yet  it  is  plain,  from  what 
he  says  elsewhere,  that  he  considered  mankind  as  cor- 
rupt only  from  practice,  for  he  asks,  "  how  the  child 
who  has  done  nothing  can  have  fallen  under  the 
curse  of  Jidam?"  And  after  asserting,  that  those 
who  had  lived  under  the  law  before  the  coming  of 
Christ  would  be  justified  by  faith  only,  and  that  those 
who  were  to  be  justified  from  among  the  Gentiles 
required  not  only  faith,  but  as  they  had  followed  phi- 

*  Lib.  ii.  cap.  39  ;  lib.  iv.  cap.  30 ;  lib.  v.  cap.  31. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


317 


losophy,  needed  to  be  converted  from  idolatry,  he 
remarks,  "  that  the  Lord,  after  he  died,  went  down  to 
Hades,  and  preached  to  the  Hebrews,  that  they  might 
obtain  that  blessing;  and  that  his  Apostles,  when  they 
died,  preached  to  Socrates  and  the  other  virtuous 
Gentiles,  that  they  might  reclaim  them  from  the 
latter,  and  prepare  them  for  being  justified."*  And 
he  affirms  even  that  the  Redeemer  himself,  though 
he  was  perfectly  holy,  was  regenerated  at  his  bap- 
tism ;  for  after  referring  to  the  administration  of  it  to 
him  by  his  forerunner,  he  adds,  "  Let  us  ask,  then, 
the  wise,  is  Christ,  who  was  regenerated  to-day, 

perfect?  nv$ij)fntOa,  ovv    ruv   5091*1/  a^fni^ov  arovyti'i'J^eij  o 

X^KTf  oj  jiSj;  n-ks ioj  ;"  Paedag.  lib.  i.  cap.  6,  p.  68. 

In  short,  while  it  was  the  opinion  of  Origen,  that 
neither  the  sufferings  of  the  wicked,  nor  the  happiness 
of  the  righteous,  would  properly  speaking  be  eternal, 
his  sentiments  about  the  atonement  and  many  other 
subjects  were  in  direct  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Apostles.  He  admits,  indeed,  the  substitu- 
tion of  Christ,  but  asserts  at  the  same  time,  that 
not  only  apostles  and  prophets,  but  even  the  celes- 
tial angels  and  glorified  saints  may  be  our  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifices  for  appeasing  the  Almighty .\ 
Nay,  as  is  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Cave,  he  imagined 
that  Christ  died  not  for  men  only,  "  but  for  angels, 
and  devils,  and  the  heavenly  bodies."%   And  so  gene- 

*  Strom,  lib.  ii.  p.  287;  ibid.  lib.  iii.  p.  342;  ibid.  lib.  vi.  p.  459, 
460;  Comp.  Strom,  lib  ii.  p.  277. 

t  Tom.  i.  p.  121,  136,  150.  "Sic  ergo  fortassis,  et  si  quis  est  ange- 
lorum,  coelestiurnquc  virtutum,  aut  si  quis  justorum  hominurii,  vel 
etiam  sanctorum  prophetarum  atquc  apostolorum,  qui  enixius  inter- 
veniat  pro  pcccatorum  hominum  hie  pro  rcpropitiationc  divina  velut 
aries  aut  vitulus,  aut  hircus  oblatus  esse  sacrificium  ob  purificationem 
populo  impttrandam  accipi  potest,"  torn.  i.  p.  40,  03. 

J  Review  of  Tomlinc's  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  Christ.  Instructor, 
vol.  iv.  p.  397.  Ernesti,  though  not  a  Calvinist,  makes  the  following 
remark  in  his  unpublished  MS.  Lectures  on  the  doctrine  of  the  fa- 
thers :  "  Videtur  cxistimasse,"  says  he  of  Justin  Martyr,  "  hominem 
habere  a  natura  liberum  arbitrium,  h.  e.  facultatem  eligendi  bonum 
et  malum,  recte  ct  male  agendi,  servandi  Dei  praccepta  et  violandi. 
Verum  si  ex  verbis  est  judicandum  mnnes  fere  doctores  rcclesiae  hujus 
criminis  rei  sunt,  quia  omnes  fere  de  libero  arbitrio  non  satis  accurate 
locuti  sunt." 


31S 


LETTERS  ON 


ral  was  this  apostasy  from  the  purity  of  the  faith,  that, 
as  was  remarked  again  by  Whitgift,  "  almost  all  the 
bishops  and  learned  writers  of  the  Greke  Church, 
yea  and  the  Latines  also,  for  the.  most  part  were 
spotted  with  the  doctrines  of  free  will,  of  merites,  of 
invocation  of  sainctes,  and  such  lyke." 

Nor  did  they  deviate  less  from  the  example  of  the 
Apostles,  in  regard  to  many  rites  and  religious  obser- 
vances. We  have  a  remarkable  instance  of  this  in 
the  time  which  was  selected  for  the  celebration  of 
Easter,  the  one-half  of  the  Church  contending,  with 
Polycarp,  that  it  ought  to  be  kept  on  the  day  of  the 
Jewish  Passover,  and  appealing  in  support  of  it  to  the 
opinion  and  practice  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  the  other, 
with  Anicetus,  maintaining  that  it  ought  to  be  kept 
on  a  subsequent  day,  and  appealing  in  proof  of  it  to 
the  opinion  and  practice  of  Peter  and  Paul.  It  is 
plain,  however,  that  one  of  them  at  least,  and  most 
probably  both,  must  have  erred  as  to  this  matter,  for 
no  day  seems  to  have  been  fixed  for  it,  as  far  as  can 
be  collected  from  Scripture,  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 
And  if  they  departed  in  this  respect  from  the  example 
of  these  early  ministers  of  Christ,  though  many  of 
them  had  seen  them,  and  were  acquainted  with  their 
practice,  is  it  not  equally  conceivable,  that  they  may 
have  departed  from  their  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity? 
The  Apostles  never  prayed  for  the  souls  of  the  dead ; 
but  it  would  seem  from  what  is  mentioned  in  the 
writings  of  Tertullian,  Cyril,  and  others,  that  this  was 
the  practice  of  the  Church  from  an  early  period. 
"  Then,"  says  the  last  of  these  authors,  "  we  pray 
during  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  for  all  who 
have  lived  among  us,  believing  that  it  is  a  great  assist- 
ance to  those  souls  for  which  prayer  is  made,  while 
that  holy  and  awful  sacrifice  is  presented  on  the  al- 
tar."* And  in  the  Greek  Liturgy  of  Chrysostom,  they 
say,  especially  for  our  "  most  holy,  immaculate,  most 

*  E/t«  z.3.1  izri£  ira.\Tcii  aTkunctv  £v  *fjtii"  &.c.  Tertullian,  in  his 
Liber  de  Corona,  p.  341,  says,  "  Oblationes  pro  defunctis,  pro  nata- 
litiis  annua  die  facimus."  Consult,  too,  his  Treatise  de  Monogamia, 
cap.  x.,  and  Cyprian's  Epistle  ad  Plebem  et  Cler.  Furnitanorum. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


319 


blessed  Lady,  the  mother  of  God,  and  ever  Virgin 
Mary."  The  Apostles  never  prayed  to  the  saints  in 
in  heaven  to  intercede  for  them  with  God;  but  this 
seems  to  have  been  common  in  the  early  Church. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  eighteenth  oration,  speaks 
of  a  nun  "  who  supplicated  the  Virgin  Mary  to  afford 
aid  to  a  virgin  in  peril."  And  Ambrose,  in  his  funeral 
oration  for  his  friend  Satyrus,  says  that  the  latter 
"  had  asked  only  of  St.  Lawrence  the  Martyr  a  safe 
passage."*  The  Apostles  never  prayed  looking  only 
towards  the  east.  But,  says  Tertullian,  in  the  name 
of  the  Christians  of  his  day,  "  We  pray  toward  the 
east,"t  because,  as  he  observes  in  another  treatise, 
(Advers.  Valent.,  p.  284,)  "  it  is  a  type  of  Christ, 

*  "Read,"  says  Bishop  Newton  in  his  23d  Dissertation,  "the  Ora- 
tion of  Basil  on  the  Martyr  Mamas." 

"Mamas,"  says  the  author  of  Ancient  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  p.  174, 
"  a  shepherd  of  Cappadocia,  had  suffered  about  the  year  275 ;  churches 
had  been  built  to  his  honour,  and,  as  it  appears,  he  had  come  in  these 
provinces  to  be  as  much  importuned  as  was  St.  Lawrence  at  Milan, 
or  St.  Januarius  at  Naples,  being  one  of  the  dii  majores  of  the  Greek 
Church  ;  nor  was  there  any  sort  of  aid  he  would  not  render  to  his 
favoured  votaries.  In  explanation  of  Basil's  allusions,  it  should  be 
observed,  that  a  principal  function  of  these  divinities  was  to  discover 
lost  or  stolen  goods,  in  dreams,  to  those  who  had  occasion  to  seek 
such  information  at  their  hands. 

"  Memores  estote  martyris,  quotquot  illo  per  somnia  potiti  estis, 
quotquot  in  hoc  loco  constiluti,  adjutorem  ipsum  ad  precandum  ha- 
buistis;  quibuscunque  ex  nomine  advocatus  ipsis  adfuit  operibus : 
quotquot  aberrantes  ad  viam  reduxit,  quotquot  sanitati  restituit,  qui- 
buscunque filios  jam  mortuos  ad  vitam  reductos  reddidit,  quotquot 
vitae  terminos  prorogavit.  ("ollectis  in  unum  his  omnibus,  ex  com- 
muni  symbolo,  martyri  encomium  construite."    Tom.  i.  p.  595. 

"  Read,"  says  Bishop  Newton,  "  his  Oration  on  the  forty  martyrs." 

"These,"  says  the  author  of  Ancient  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  p.  176, 
"  were  so  many  soldiers,  who,  at  Sebaste,  in  Armenia,  had  suffered 
with  great  constancy,  under  Licinius,  so  late  as  the  year  320.  A 
magnificent  church  had  been  erected  in  honour  of  them  at  Cesarea, 
and  in  which  had  been  treasured  some  particles  of  their  inestimable 
dust,  to  which  the  people  were  accustomed  to  crowd,  under  direction 
of  their  priests,  for  obtaining  cures  and  deliverances." 

The  following  are  the  terms  in  which  Basil  apostrophizes  these 
forty  martyrs. 

"  O  holy  choir  !  oh  !  sacred  band  !  oh  !  unconquerable  phalanx  ! 
oh  !  common  guardians  of  the  human  family  !  kind  participants  of  our 
cares!  helpers  of  our  prayers  !  most  potent  advocates  (ambassadors!) 
stars  of  the  world  !  flowers  of  the  Churches  !  O  sanctum  chorum,"  &c. 

t  "  Nos  ad  orientis  regionem  precari ;"  Apol.  c.  xvi.  p.  688. 


320 


LETTERS  ON 


Christi  figuram."  The  Apostles  did  not  breathe  on 
the  faces  of  those  who  applied  for  baptism  to  exorcize 
them,  or  expel  the  devil  from  them,  before  they  re- 
ceived that  ordinance.  But  this,  as  appears  from 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Cyprian,  was  done  to 
heretics  and  schismatics  by  the  ancient  Church.  Nor 
did  they  feed  those  to  whom  that  sacrament  was  ad- 
ministered with  milk  and  honey,  and  yet  Tertullian 
tells  us  that  this  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church.*  Nor  did  they  clothe  them  with  white  gar- 
ments, which  they  were  to  wear  for  a  week,  saying 
to  them,  "receive  these  white  and  unspotted  gar- 
ments, which  you  must  produce  without  spot  before 
the  tribunal  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  you  may 
have  eternal  life;"  and  yet  this  was  done  by  the  early 
Church.  Nor  did  they  anoint  them  with  oil ;  and  yet 
such,  as  is  mentioned  by  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  was 
the  custom  which  was  followed  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Church.  "As  soon,"  says  the  former,  "as  we  are 
baptized  we  are  anointed  with  the  blessed  unction — 
an  external  carnal  unction  is  poured  upon  us,  but  it 
benefits  us  spiritually. "t  And  says  the  latter,  "  He 
that  is  baptized  must  of  necessity  be  anointed,  that 
having  received  the  chrism  or  unction,  he  may  be  the 
anointed  of  God."J  And  they  never  signed  them 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  nor  confirmed  them  by  the 
imposition  of  hands,  except  when  they  communicated 
miraculous  gifts.  But  both  these  forms  were  observed 
by  the  primitive  Church.  "  The  flesh,"  says  Ter- 
tullian, "  is  signed,  that  the  soul  maybe  fortified." 
"  And  when  the  unction  is  finished,  then  hands  are 
imposed,  with  prayers  invoking  and  inviting  the  Holy 
Spirit." §  The  Apostles  never  administered  the  Eu- 
charist to  infants;  and  yet  it  would  seem  that  it  was 
done  in  the  days  of  Cyprian  by  the  ancient  Church, 

*  "  Inde  susccpti  lactis  et  mellis  concordiam  praegustamus ;"  de 
Corona,  p.  431. 

t  "  Egressi  de  lavacro  perungimur,"  &c. ;  de  Baptismo,  p.  599. 

t  "  Ungi  quosque  necesse  est  earn,"  &c. ;  Epist.  70. 

§  De  Resurrectione  Carnis  et  de  Baptismo,  p.  600.  Those  who 
were  baptized  in  infancy  do  not  appear  to  have  been  signed  and  con- 
firmed  till  afterwards. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


321 


for  he  speaks  of  a  deacon  who  "  forced  upon  a  little 
female  infant  against  her  will  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
cup;  but  the  Eucharist  would  not  remain  in  a  body 
and  mouth  that  had  been  polluted  previously  with 
bread  and  wine,  which  had  been  used  in  the  soul- 
slaughter  of  perishing  Christians."*  The  Apostles 
did  not  take  the  Eucharist  fasting,  and  yet  Augustine 
informs  us  in  his  1 18th  Epistle,  that  "  it  was  the  custom 
of  Christians  over  the  whole  world  to  partake  of  it 
only  when  fasting.  (Toto  orbe  hunc  morem  tenuisse 
quo  Christiani  nisi  jejuni  Eucharistiam  non  accipe- 
rent.")  Nor  did  they  "  fast  on  every  Monday  through 
the  whole  year,  or  use  only  dried  meat  and  bread  with 
salt  and  water  at  Lent,"  which  Epiphanius  (Advers. 
Haeres.  in  Epilogo,)  says,  was  "  an  apostolic  tra- 
dition" 

The  Apostles  were  not  in  the  habit  of  pouring  a 
little  of  the  Sacramental  wine,  or  dropping  a  little  of 
the  bread,  or  of  their  ordinary  food,  on  the  ground,  or 
of  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  their  foreheads 
when  they  put  on  or  off  their  clothes,  or  went  into  the 
bath,  or  sat  down  to  meat,  or  lighted  their  lamps,  or 
retired  to  bed,  or  set  out  on  a  journey,  and  at  every 
successive  stage  of  it.  And  yet  TertuUian  informs 
us  that  it  was  the  general  practice  of  the  Christians 
of  his  day,  though  he  confesses  that  there  was  no 
command  for  it  in  Scripture,  and  justifies  it,  like  you, 
only  by  tradition. t  The  Apostles  did  not  enjoin  the 
people  to  bring  the  first  ripe  ears  of  corn,  or  the 
first  ripe  grapes,  and  present  them  on  the  altar  that 
they  might  be  blessed  by  the  priests,  or  to  lay  upon  it 
oil  for  the  lamps  of  the  Temple,  or  incense  to  be 
burnt  during  the  offering  of  the  Eucharist.    And  yet 

*  De  Lapsis. 

t  "  Calicis  aut  panis  ctiam  nostri  aliquid  decuti  in  terram  anxie 
patimur.  Ad  omnem  progressum,  atque  promntum,  ad  oinncm  adi- 
tum  ct  cxitum,  ad  vestitum  ct  calceaturn,  ad  lavacra,  ad  mcnsas,  ad 
himina,  ad  cubilia,  ad  sedilia,  quacunque  nos  conversalio  exercet, 
frontem  crucis  signaculo  tcrimus.  Harurn  ct  aliarum  ejusmodi  dis- 
ciplinarum  si  legem  cxpostulcs  scripturarum,  nullam  invenies;  tra- 
ditio  tibi  praetcndetur  auctrix,  consuetudo  confirmatrix,  ct  fides  ob- 
scrvatrix."    Liber  de  Corona,  p.  341. 

21 


322 


LETTERS  ON 


all  this  is  sanctioned  by  the  third  Apostolic  Canon, 
which  was  made,  as  is  usually  alleged  by  Episcopa- 
lians, within  the  first  three  centuries.*  The  Apostles 
never  used  such  language  as  the  following  respecting 
almsgiving,  and  yet  it  was  common,  not  only  in  the 
days  of  Chrysostom,  but  in  a  previous  age  :  "  Heaven 
is  on  sale,  and  yet  we  mind  it  not.  Give  a  crust,  and 
take  back  paradise ;  give  the  least,  and  receive  the 
greatest ;  give  the  perishable,  receive  the  imperish- 
able; give  the  corruptible,  receive  the  incorruptible. "t 
And,  without  enlarging  farther  on  this  painful  subject, 
I  would  conclude  these  details  with  the  following  ac- 
count by  the  eloquent  author  of  Ancient  Christianity, 
of  the  corruptions  which  prevailed  from  the  earliest 
times  in  an  increasing  degree  in  the  ancient  Church. 
"  Throughout  the  east,  throughout  the  west,  through- 
out the  African  Church,  virginity  they  put  first  and 
foremost,  then  came  maceration  of  the  body,  tears, 
psalm-singing,  prostrations  on  the  bare  earth,  humili- 
ations, alms-giving,  expiatory  labours  and  sufferings, 
the  kind  offices  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  the  wonder- 
working efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  the  unutterable 
powers  of  the  clergy,  these  were  the  rife  and  favoured 
themes  of  animated  sermons,  and  of  prolix  treatises ; 
and  such  was  the  style,  spirit,  temper  and  practice  of 
the  Church,  from  the  banks  of  the  Tigris,  to  the 
shores  of  the  Atlantic,  and  from  the  Scandinavian 
morasses  to  the  burning  sands  of  the  great  desert ; 
such,  so  far  as  our  extant  materials  give  us  any  infor- 
mation."!: And  again  he  observes,  (and  there  are 
few  who  have  read  the  writings  of  the  fathers  with 
candour  and  attention,  that  will  not  acquiesce  in  the 
statement,)  "I  am  bold  to  express  my  belief,  that  if 
we  exclude  certain  crazed  fanatics  of  our  times,  the 

*  "  Ma  s|cv  (Tree  irgsrajfs-Si/  Tt  \ti?--y  i:;  t:  6uri*rrn^nt  »  t>.*ivi  us 
T»v  Xi/Vv/av  KXi  bj/x  sL/jLa.  to-  xaif»  t»c  ajjac  s-gis^ijic.  El  Tts  iTirxiTi;  * 
T(i7 SuT«gv;  rraga,  tx»  tcu  xv^h-j  i.amfn  Tut  in  t»  Si/y/a,"  &c.  Bishop 
Beveridge,  in  his  Annotations,  p.  16,  says,  "Fructus  qui  apud  Graecos 
a  sacerdote  wxrywrai  benedicuntur  sunt  uva,  ficus,  malagranata,  oli- 
vae,  poma,  mala  Pcrsica,  ct  pruna."  The  form  of  benediction  both 
in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church  is  subjoined. 

i  OomiL  3,  torn.  ii.  p.  318.  t  Ibid.  p.  365. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY". 


323 


least  esteemed  community  of  orthodox  Christians 
among  us,  whichever  that  may  be,  if  taken  in  the 
mass,  and  fairly  measured  against  the  Church  Catholic 
of  the  first  two  centuries,  would  outweigh  it  deci- 
sively in  Christian  wisdom,  in  common  discretion,  in 
purity  of  manners,  and  in  purity  of  creed."* 

If  these  things,  however,  are  so,  I  leave  it  to  any 
impartial  judge  to  say,  whether  it  would  at  all  sur- 
prise him  to  discover,  upon  examining  the  writings  of 
the  fathers,  that  they  had  departed  by  degrees  from 
that  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  which  was 
approved  by  the  Apostles.  They  left  the  doctrines 
which  they  had  heard  from  these  venerable  and  holy 
men,  or  fiom  the  lips  of  their  disciples,  and  adopted 
very  dangerous  and  erroneous  opinions  on  some  im- 
portant points  of  the  Christian  faith.  And  they  cor- 
rupted those  simple  religious  ordinances  which  these 
inspired  and  distinguished  ministers  of  the  Redeemer 
prescribed  to  the  Church  for  the  admission  of  its  mem- 
bers, and  the  regulation  of  its  worship,  and  introduced 
a  variety  of  superstitious  rites  and  unscriptural  ob- 
servances, which  constituted  the  foundation  of  that 
monstrous  system  of  will-worship  and  idolatry  which 
rose  at  length  to  such  a  fearful  height  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  And  if  they  deviated  so  far  in  both  these 
respects  from  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  origi- 
nal founders  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  is  incumbent 
on  you  to  show,  that  they  might  not  deviate  as  widely 
in  two  or  three  centuries  from  their  form  of  polity,  till 
they  established,  in  the  first  place,  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy, and  afterwards  the  Papacy,  in  the  last  of  which 
instances  I  trust  you  are  not  yet  prepared  to  deny  that 
they  departed  from  the  Apostles.  And  till  you  are 
able  to  do  this,  you  can  no  more  infer,  from  the  early 
existence  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  though  you  could 

*  Page  110.  "Those,"  says  this  admirable  writer,  p.  191,  "who 
have  known  what  it  is  with  a  hand  warm  with  health,  io  take  within 
their  own  the  hand  of  a  corpse,  know  how  the  chill  ascends  to  the 
heart  and  enters  the  soul.  Of  this  sort  is  the  feeling  with  which,  if 
the  mind  be  quickened  by  scriptural  pitty,  it  makes  its  first  acquaint- 
ance with  the  body  of  ancient  Christianity." 


324 


LETTERS  OX 


prove  it  by  the  strongest  historical  evidence,  that  it 
received  the  sanction  of  these  holy  men,  than  you  are 
entitled  to  infer,  from  the  early  existence  of  these  er- 
roneous opinions  on  subjects  of  very  grave  and  solemn 
importance,  or  of  these  superstitious  rites  and  idola- 
trous observances,  that  the  latter  were  approved  by 
the  same  individuals,  and  that  the  one  were  to  be 
preached  in  opposition  to  what  they  had  expressly 
staled  in  their  writings,  and  the  others  were  to  be 
practised  throughout  future  ages  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XX. 

Extraordinary  opinion  of  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  that  the  Scriptures,  though 
a  rule  of  faith,  are  not  a  rule  of  discipline  and  practice,  and  that  the  latter 
is  to  be  (ound  in  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  along  with  the  Scriptures. 
— This  an  impeachment  of  the  peritenon  of  the  Scriptures  in  opposition 
to  their  own  explicit  siatements,  and  a  mean  of  virtually  adding  to  the 
institutions  w  hich  they  prescribe  to  the  Church,  in  opposition  to  their 
express  and  solemn  warnings. — The  traditions  of  the  Fathers  not  a  sale 
guide,  because  those  who  deliver  them  were  weak,  inexperienced,  and 
fallible  men,  though  they  lived  near  to  the  Apostles;  and  if  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  were  written  by  men  who  were  inspired,  are  not  sufficient 
to  direct  us,  we  can  have  no  assurance  that  w  hen  we  are  following  these 
traditions  we  are  not  embracing  error. — As  much  danger  of  our  doing 
this,  and  of  our  making  void  the  institutions  of  Christ,  by  our  not  trusting 
in  the  Scriptures  exclusively,  but  adopting  what  is  recommended  by  the 
traditions  of  the  Fathers,  as  there  was  to  the  Jews  of  making  void  the 
law  of  God  by  following  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  because  they  lived 
near  to  the  prophets,  instead  of  trusting  exclusively  in  the  w  ritings  of  the 
prophets. — Fusebius  and  Socrates  condemn  some  of  the  traditions  of  the 
Fathers,  and  others  of  them  such  as  even  Puseyites  would  reject. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  language  which  is  employed 
by  many  of  the  writers  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  respect- 
ing the  exclusive  claims  of  your  National  Church 
(Papists  and  Scottish  Episcopalians  excepted)  to  the 
honourable  character  of  a  Christian  Church,  is  such 
as  is  fitted  to  awaken  emotions  of  no  ordinary  kind  in 
the  minds  of  Protestants,  and  would  require  to  be  jus- 
tified by  the  most  powerful  arguments.     "  She  is 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


325 


sprung,"  they  affirm,  "  from  the  very  Church  which 
Christ  set  up  at  Jerusalem,  and  none  of  the  sects  (for 
all  others  are  sects)  have  this  great  gift.  There  is  not 
one  of  her  bishops  who  cannot  trace  his  right  to  guide 
and  govern  Christ's  Church  through  a  long  line  of 
predecessors,  up  to  the  favoured  persons  who  were 
consecrated  by  the  laying  on  of  the  holy  hands  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul.  This  is  a  fact  which  Dissenters 
from  the  Church  of  England  do  not,  and  cannot  deny. 
Her  ministry  is  an  appointed  condition  of  the  salva- 
tion of  the  elect"  in  Britain.  They  alone  have  a 
"  warrant  which  marks  them  exclusively  for  God's 
ambassadors,"  and  "  they  are  a  perpetual  earnest  of 
communion  with  the  Lord  at  his  table  to  those  who 
come  properly  prepared  to  his  table.  Christ  prays 
only  for  those  who  believe  in  him  through  the  word 
of  the  Apostles,  and  their  successors,  the  bishops.  If 
men  would  be  disciples  or  Christians,  they  must  be 
baptized  by  apostolical  (episcopal)  authority  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  And  if  they  would  take 
and  eat  Christ's  body,  they  must  take  and  eat  the 
bread  and  drink  of  the  cup  blessed  by  those  who  have 
authority  to  bless  it,  in  remembrance  of  him.  And  in 
Churches  which  have  not  the  Episcopal  succession, 
the  gracious  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be 
so  certainly  depended  upon,  as  for  other  sanctifying 
purposes,  so  for  the  guiding  the  mind  to  doctrinal 
truth;  nor  can  they  have  the  same  reason  to  expect 
the  presence  of  the  Saviour."*  In  short,  within  those 
favoured  Churches  which  have  diocesan  bishops,  ac- 
cording to  these  writers,  there  is  spiritual  light,  like 
the  physical  light  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  which  was 
the  abode  of  the  Israelites  during  one  of  the  plagues, 
while  in  other  Churches  where  these  guardians  of 
truth  and  bulwarks  against  error  are  not  to  be  seen, 
like  the  rest  of  Egypt  at  that  eventful  period,  there  is 
"  darkness  that  may  be  felt." 

And  what  is  the  ground  on  which  they  advance 
these  lofty  and  intolerant  claims  in  behalf  of  Episco- 

*  4lh,  llth,  29th,  30th,  35th,  40th  and  57th  Tracts. 


326 


LETTERS  OX 


pacy,  at  which  Cranmer,  and  Jewel,  and  Hooker 
would  have  blushed,  and  employ  such  language 
respecting  other  Churches,  where  the  fruits  produced 
both  among  the  old  and  the  young,  by  the  labours  of 
their  ministers,  will  bear  to  be  compared  with  those 
of  the  ministers  of  Episcopalian  Churches?  It  is 
partly  the  different  arguments  from  Scripture  which 
have  been  already  considered,  and  which  will  by  no 
means  warrant  these  haughty  assumptions  and  un- 
charitable conclusions,  and  partly  an  argument  of  a 
very  different  kind  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity,  to 
prove  that  Episcopacy  was  approved  by  the  Apostles, 
which  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  that  I  have 
ever  met  with  in  support  of  that  position. 

"  In  the  first  place,"  says  the  author  of  one  of  the 
Tracts,  "  let  us  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Episcopacy  is  in  fact  not  at  all  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, even  then  it  would  be  our  duty  to  receive  it. 
Why?  Because  the  first  Christians  received  it.  If 
we  wish  to  get  at  the  truth,  no  matter  how  we  get  at  it, 
if  we  get  at  it.  If  it  be  a  fact,  that  the  earliest  Christian 
communities  were  universally  Episcopal,  it  is  a  reason 
for  our  maintaining  Episcopacy,  and  in  proportion  to 
our  conviction,  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  maintain  it." 

"  Nor  can  it  be  fairly  dismissed  as  a  non-essential, 
an  ordinance  indifferent  and  mutable,  though  formerly 
existing  over  Christendom;  for  who  made  us  judges 
of  essentials  and  non-essentials?  How  do  we  deter- 
mine them  ?  Does  not  its  universality  imply  a  neces- 
sary connection  with  Christian  doctrine?  But  it  may 
be  urged,  that  we  Protestants  believe  the  Scriptures 
to  contain  the  whole  rule  of  duty.  Certainly  not: 
they  constitute  a  rule  of faith,  not  a  rule  of  practice; 
a  rule  of  doctrine,  not  a  rule  of  conduct  or  discipline. 
Where  (e.  g.)  are  we  told  in  Scripture  that  gambling 
is  wrong?  or  again,  suicide?"  (Tract  45.)  "And," 
says  Bishop  Russel,  "  Augustine  farther  reminds  us, 
that  many  things  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  Apostles,  nor  in  the  councils  of  later 
ages,  yet  because  they  are  observed  by  the  whole 
Church,  are  believed  to  have  been  delivered  and 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


327 


recommended  by  their  authority."*  And  again, 
"  There  are  many  things  which  the  Universal  Church 
holds,  and  which  for  this  reason  are  rightly  believed 
to  have  been  commanded  by  the  Apostles,  although 
they  are  not  found  written. "t  Upon  this  argument, 
however,  which  is  adduced  repeatedly  in  others  of  the 
Tracts,  and  on  which  considerable  stress  is  laid  by  the 
writers,  I  would  briefly  remark, 

1st,  It  is  certainly  strange  for  any  Protestant  to 
maintain  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  rule  of  faith,  but 
not  of  practice  ;  a  rule  of  doctrine,  but  not  a  rule  of 
conduct  or  discipline.  You  at  least  will  surely  admit 
that  we  need  an  unerring  and  infallible  rule  to  direct 
us  as  to  our  duty,  as  well  as  an  infallible  rule  to  guide 
us  as  to  our  faith.  And  you  unquestionably  ought  to 
be  prepared  to  acknowledge  that  we  require  such  a 
rule  in  regard  to  discipline  ;  for  if  there  be  only  one 
ministry  which  Christ  has  appointed,  to  which  alone 
he  has  promised  his  presence,  the  existence  of  which 
is  "  a  condition  of  our  salvation,"  and  the  members  of 
which  are  the  only  accredited  "  ambassadors  of  hea- 
ven ;"  and  if  he  himself  has  warned  us  against  follow- 
ing the  prescriptions  and  commandments  of  men  in 
our  religious  services,  in  what  a  state  must  we  be,  if 
he  has  not  furnished  us  with  a  guide  on  which  we  can 
unhesitatingly  depend,  to  point  out  to  us  the  different 
orders  in  that  ministry,  and  those  rites  and  ordinances 
which  he  himself  has  instituted,  and  which  alone  he 
will  bless!  Now,  where  is  that  unerring  rule  to  be 
found,  if  it  is  not  contained  solely  and  exclusively  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures?  Everything  which  they  reveal 
is  guaranteed  to  the  Christian  as  free  from  the  small- 
est mixture  of  error,  because  it  was  written  by  holy 
men  of  God,  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  if  he  is  to  trust  only  in  part  to  them,  and  in  part 

*  Sermon,  p.  4-1.  "  Multa  quae  non  inveniuntur  in  Uteris  coruni 
neque  in  conciliis  postcriorum,  ct  tamen  quia  per  universam  custodi- 
untur  ecclesiam,  non  nisi  ab  ipsis  tradita  et  conunendata  creduntur." 
De  Bap.  contra  Donatistas,  lib.  ii.  c.  7. 

+  "  Sunt  inulta  quae  universa  tenet  ecclesia,  et  ob  hoc  ab  Apostolis 
praccepta  bene  creduntur,  quanquarn  scripta  non  reperiantur ;"  lib. 
v.  c.  7. 


328 


LETTEKS  OX 


to  the  writings  and  traditions  of  the  fathers, — weak, 
uninspired  and  fallible  men, — he  can  have  no  assu- 
rance that  he  will  be  preserved  from  error,  any  farther 
than  he  follows  what  is  contained  in  the  former,  and, 
for  aught  that  he  knows,  may  be  permitted  to  fall  into 
it,  when  he  follows  the  latter.  Few  will  deny  that  it 
would  have  been  a  great  imperfection  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  and  an  unfailing  source  of  error  and 
superstition  to  the  ancient  Jews,  if  they  could  not  have 
collected  full  information  from  their  sacred  writings 
respecting  the  orders  of  their  priesthood,  and  their 
rites  and  ceremonies,  but  had  to  obtain  it  in  part  from 
the  traditions  of  their  elders,  many  of  whom  lived 
along  with  the  prophets,  or  at  least  as  near  to  them  as 
the  early  fathers  did  to  the  Apostles.  And  will  any 
one  deny  that  it  would  be  an  equal  imperfection  in  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,  as  a  rule  of  discipline,  and 
a  similar  source  of  error  and  superstition  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  if  they  did  not  present  to  her  complete 
information  respecting  the  orders  in  the  ministry,  and 
her  rites  and  ordinances,  without  obliging  her  to  have 
recourse  to  the  traditions  of  the  fathers,  or  to  adopt 
any  thing  which  is  not  sanctioned  in  their  pages, 
though  it  may  have  been  received  universally  by  the 
ancient  Church  ?  Besides,  ninety  out  of  a  hundred  of 
ordinary  Christians  are  not  able  to  read  the  writings 
of  the  fathers,  and  judge  for  themselves  in  regard  to 
the  ministry,  and  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  ex- 
isted in  the  early  days  of  the  Church.  And  though 
the  learned  may  be  assisted  by  the  testimony  of  these 
writers  in  their  inquiries  into  the  authenticity  and  ca- 
nonical authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  yet  it  is 
not  in  this  way,  but  by  the  internal  and  experimental 
evidence  for  these  books,  that  the  former  are  satisfied 
in  regard  to  their  inspiration.  But  while  they  are 
satisfied  in  this  way  as  to  that  momentous  point,  there 
is  no  internal  or  experimental  evidence  by  ivhich 
they  can  ascertain  whether  bishops,  as  an  order  of 
ministers,  superior  to  presbyters,  have  been  appoint- 
ed by  Christ;  and  when  they  see  how  little  they 
preach  and  labour,  that  Christ  may  be  formed  in  the 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


329 


hearts  of  the  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands 
who  are  committed  to  their  care,  many  of  them  are 
led  to  a  very  different  conclusion.  Nor  have  they  any 
such  evidence  to  convince  them  that  the  form  of  the 
cross  in  baptism,  and  others  of  your  ceremonies,  to 
which  I  have  formerly  alluded,  were  instituted  by 
Christ,  or  appointed  by  the  Apostles ;  and  consequent- 
ly, if  the  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  not  a  perfect  and 
infallible  rule  of  practice  and  discipline,  as  well  as  of 
faith,  they  are  left  without  the  means  of  forming  a 
judgment,  on  the  correctness  of  which  they  can  rely 
with  comfort,  respecting  the  ministry,  and  rites,  and 
ordinances  of  the  Church. 

2dly,  The  Scriptures  represent  themselves  as  a  per- 
fect rule,  not  only  of  faith  but  practice,  and  to  affirm 
that  any  part  of  Christian  duty,  or  any  thing  relating 
to  the  constitution  or  ordinances  of  the  Christian 
Church,  without  which  our  obedience  to  the  will  of 
Christ  would  be  defective  and  incomplete,  was  omitted 
by  the  Apostles  to  be  inserted  in  their  writings,  and 
must  be  learned  from  the  fathers,  is  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  some  of  their  most  express  and  explicit  state- 
ments. "  The  law  of  the  Lord,"  says  David,  "  is  per- 
fect, converting  the  soul :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is 
sure,  making  wise  the  simple.  The  statutes  of  the 
Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart :  the  commandment 
of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes;  (Ps.  xix. 
7,  8.)  And  again  he  observes,  (Ps.  cxix.  105,)  "Thy 
word  is  a  lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my 
path."  And  says  Paul,  in  a  passage  which  was 
quoted  in  the  preceding  letter,  "All  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works ;"  (2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17.) 
Nay,  we  are  expressly  enjoined  not  to  "  add  to  God's 
word,"  as  a  rule  of  practice  ;  (Deut.  iv.  2, 12,  32  ;  Rev. 
xxii.  19;)  as  would  virtually  be  the  case,  if  we  were 
to  receive  as  a  supplement  to  what  was  delivered  by 
the  Apostles  in  their  different  Epistles,  some  new  com- 


330 


LETTERS  ON 


mandments,  or  rites,  or  ceremonies^  which  they  com- 
municated to  the  fathers,  and  which  have  been  handed 
down  by  tradition.  And  they  may  justly  claim  for 
themselves  the  high  character  of  a  perfect  rule  of  prac- 
tice and  discipline  ;  for  while  the  words  of  the  fathers 
are  often  weak,  and  foolish,  and  blended  with  error, 
their  words  "  are  pure  words,  as  silver  tried  in  a  fur- 
nace of  earth,  seven  times  purified."  They  set  before, 
us  a  perfect  and  spotless  example  in  the  holy  life  of 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  and  we  have  only  to  consider 
how  he  would  have  acted  in  any  situation  in  which 
we  happen  to  be  placed,  and  to  walk  in  his  steps. 
And  they  set  before  us  also  the  example  of  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  perfect  at  its  institution  in  its  ministers 
and  ordinances,  and  call  upon  us,  if  we  would  witness 
similar  results  to  those  which  it  produced,  while  we 
look  up  by  humble  and  earnest  prayer  for  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit,  to  adopt  it  as  our  model  as  to 
preaching,  and  government,  and  worship,  and  disci- 
pline. It  does  not  indeed  specify  suicide  among  the 
sins  which  it  forbids,  but  it  commands  us  in  general 
to  "  do  no  murder,"  and  consequently  warns  us  against 
self  murder.  And  it  does  not  particularize  the  sin  of 
gambling,  but  it  admonishes  us  against  fraud,  and 
every  kind  of  deceit,  and  enjoins  us  to  "  provide  things 
honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men."  But  if  it  exhibit  to 
us  a  law  which  is  faultless  and  complete  in  all  its  re- 
quirements, an  example  which  is  spotless,  and  distin- 
guished by  the  highest  and  most  transcendent  excel- 
lence, and  a  pattern  of  a  church  which  is  perfect,  at 
least  as  far  as  relates  to  its  constitution,  and  ordinances, 
and  discipline  ;  and  if  it  warns  us  solemnly  against 
adding  to  its  words,  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  all 
these  statements  to  tell  us  that  we  may  learn  from  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  some  order  in  the  ministry,  or 

*  Paul  indeed  mentions  some  words  of  the  Redeemer  which  are  not 
contained  in  the  Gospels,  Acts  xx.  But  they  do  not  relate  to  any  new 
commandment;  and  though  we  cannot  depend  on  the  fathers,  we  have 
perfect  confidence  in  his  statement,  because  he  was  an  inspired  man, 
and  was  directed  bv  the  Spirit  to  repeat  them  in  the  hearing  of  Luke, 
that  they  might  be  recorded  in  his  History. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


331 


some  rite  or  ordinance  which  was  recommended  or 
expressly  enjoined  by  the  Apostles,  though  not  the 
smallest  notice  of  it  is  to  be  met  with  in  their  Epistles. 

3dly,  There  is  not  a  reformer,  either  of  your  own 
Church  or  of  any  Protestant  Church  with  which  I  am 
acquainted,  who  did  not  hold  it  to  be  a  fixed  and 
fundamental  principle,  that  we  ought  to  admit  nothing 
as  to  the  Christian  ministry,  or  the  rites, and  ordinances, 
and  discipline  of  the  Church,  which,  though  supported 
by  tradition,  was  not  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  Your 
own  Reformers  wished  to  act  upon  it  as  far  as  they 
were  permitted,  but  were  unhappily  prevented.  And 
there  was  no  Church  which  acted  on  it  so  thoroughly 
and  effectually  as  the  Church  of  Scotland,  which  pro- 
cured for  her  among  many  of  the  foreign  Protestant 
Churches  the  honourable  name  of  the  best  reformed 
of  all  the  Reformed  Churches.*' 

And,  in  short,  I  would  remark,  that  if  the  general 
adoption  by  the  ancient  Church  of  any  order  in  the 

*  I  might  appeal  to  many  testimonies  from  the  Reformed  Churches 
on  the  Continent,  expressing  their  respect  for  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
but  I  shall  quote  only  the  following  from  the  Harmony  of  Confessions : 
"  Est  Scoticanae  Ecclesiae  privilegium  rarum  prae  multis  in  quo  etiam 
ejus  nomen  apud  exteros  fuit  celebre,  quod  circiter  annos  plus  minus 
54.  sine  schismate  nedum  haeresi  unitatern  cum  puritate  doctrinae 
servaverit  et  retinuerit.  Hujus  unitatis  adminiculum  ex  Dei  miseri- 
cordia  maximum  fuit  quod  paulatim  cum  doctrina  Christi  et  Aposto- 
lorum  disciplina  sicut  ex  verbo  Dei  praescripta  est  una  fuit  rccepta,  et 
quain  proxime  fieri  poluit  secundum  earn  totum  regimen  ecclesiasti- 
cum  fuit  administratum.  Hac  ratione  omnia  schismatum  atque  er- 
rorum  semina,  quamprimum  pullulare  aut  se  exerere  visa  sunt,  in  ipsa 
quasi  herba  et  partu  sunt  suffocata  et  extirpata,  i.  e.  It  has  been  the 
rare  privilege  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  above  many  other  churches, 
for  which  it  is  celebrated  among  strangers,  that  for  about  fifty-four 
years  it  has  preserved  and  retained  unity  along  with  purity  of  doc- 
trine without  schism  or  heresy.  It  was  a  great  mean  of  promoting 
this  unity  through  the  mercy  of  God,  that  along  with  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  it  embraced  also  by  degrees  the  discipline  or  jiolitij  of  the  Apos- 
tles, as  it  was  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God,  according  to  whicli,  aa 
nearly  as  possible,  their  whole  ecclesiastical  government  was  adminis- 
tered. In  this  way  all  the  seeds  of  schisms  and  errors,  as  soon  as  they 
appeared  to  spring  and  vegetate,  were  choked  and  rooted  out  in  the 
very  blade."  Such  was  the  testimony  which  was  then  borne  not  only 
to  the  doctrine,  but  the  worship  and  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  the  superior  efficacy  of  Presbyterian  principles  for  pre- 
venting schism  and  repressing  heresy. 


332 


LETTERS  ON 


Christian  ministry,  or  rite,  or  ceremony,  prove  that  it 
must  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  Apostles, 
though  they  neither  appointed  it,  nor  mentioned  it  in 
their  writings,  it  Avill  prove  at  the  same  time  that  all 
those  opinions  respecting  the  doctrines  of  religion, 
however  unsound,  and  all  those  practices,  however 
superstitious,  which  prevailed  generally  in  the  ancient 
Church  from  the  earliest  ages,  though  not  referred  to 
in  their  Epistles,  must  have  met  with  their  approba- 
tion. They  must  have  approved  in  particular  of  those 
heresies  about  free  will,  and  those  gross  and  extra- 
vagant notions  about  the  Millennium,  with  which, 
according  to  Whitgift  and  Ernesti,  the  whole  of  the 
fathers  from  Justin  Martyr  were  tainted.*  They 
must  have  approved  also  of  the  practice  of  praying 
for  the  dead,  though  none  of  them  seems  to  have  ob- 
served it:  and  though  they  represent  the  state  of  those 
who  are  departed,  after  their  present  course  of  trial  is 
finished,  as  immutably  fixed,  for  they  tell  us  that  they 
will  be  judged  according  to  their  ivorks,  and  declare, 
in  the  parables  of  the  pounds  and  the  talents,  that  the 
rewards  of  grace  which  will  be  bestowed  on  the 
righteous  will  be  proportioned  to  the  measure  of  their 
religious  attainments,  and  to  the  amount  of  their  ser- 
vices ivhile  they  ivere  living  upon  earth.  And  yet 
these  prayers  were  offered  by  the  early  fathers,  not 
merely  for  the  dead  who  were  truly  pious,  but  in  some 
instances  for  the  unconverted;  for  the  following  were 
the  terms  in  which  Ambrose  prayed  for  Valentinian, 
who,  according  to  the  author  of  Ancient  Christianity, 
died  "uninitiated,  unregenerate,  unjustified,  that  is, 
unbaptized;  solve,  igitur,  Pater  Sancte,  munus  servo 
tuo."  And  says  Dr.  Field,  whom  you  quote  as  a  high 

*  "It  appears  manifestly  out  of  this  book  of  Ircnaeus,  quoted  by 
you,"  says  Chillingworth,  Religion  of  Protestants,  Bishop  Patrick's 
edition,  p.  352,  "that  the  doctrine  of  the  Chiliasts  was  in  his  judg- 
ment apostolick  tradition,  as  also  it  was  esteemed  (for  ought  appears 
to  the  contrary)  by  all  the  doctors, and  saints,  and  martyrs  of  or  about 
his  time,  for  all  that  speak  of  it,  or  whose  judgments  in  the  point  are 
any  way  recorded,  are  for  it;  and  Justin  Martyr  professeth  that  all 
good  and  orthodox  Christians  of  his  time  belietid  it,  and  those  that 
did  not  he  reckons  amongst  heretics." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


333 


authority  when  he  favours  your  sentiments,  "Epipha- 
nius  answers,  that  though  the  prayers  of  the  living 
cutte  not  off  the  whole  punishment  of  sinne,  (from 
the  impenitent,)  yet  some  mercie  is  obtained  for  sin- 
ners by  them,  at  least/or  some  mitigation  or  suspen- 
sion of their  punishment,  of  which  opinion,  as  I  have 
showed  before,  many  other  were  as  well  as  Epipha- 
nius."  And  even  when  they  were  offered  for  the 
saints,  it  was  not  merely  to  commemorate  their  vir- 
tues, as  some  have  asserted,  or  to  express  only  a 
passing  wish,  as  you  would  insinuate,  but  according 
to  Cyril,  in  an  extract  which  was  given  from  him  in  a 
former  letter,  as  "a  great  assistance  to  them."  And 
they  must  have  approved  likewise  of  prayers  to  the 
dead,  though  no  such  intercessions  were  ever  offered 
by  them,  as  far  as  appears  from  their  writings,  while 
they  remained  upon  earth,  and  though  they  must 
have  been  aware  that  the  saints  in  the  other  world, 
unless  they  were  omniscient  and  omnipresent,  could 
not  hear  them.  Nor  were  these  prayers  merely  apos- 
trophes, as  you  are  desirous  to  represent  them  ;*  for, 

*  "The  addresses  in  the  fourth  century  being  rather  apostrophes 
to  the  blessed  saints  who  were  at  the  moment  before  the  minds  of 
those  who  used  them,  than  systematic  requests  for  their  intercession." 
Letter  from  Dr.  Pusey  to  Dr.  Jelf,  on  the  Articles  treated  in  Tract  90, 
p.  119. 

Would  Dr.  Pusey  have  the  goodness  to  say  whether  the  following 
expressions,  used  by  Ephrcm,  the  Syrian,  to  the  Virgin,  are  only  an 
apostrophe?  "Be  present  with  me  now  and  always,  O  Virgin,  Mother 
of  God,  Mother  of  Mercy,  beneficent  and  kind. 

"O  Virgin,  Lady,  Mother  of  God,  who  didst  carry  Christ  our 
Saviour  and  Lord  in  thy  womb,  /  repose  in  thee  all  my  hope,  and  I 
trust  in  thee  who  art  higher  than  all  heavenly  powers." 

"Adesto  mini  nunc  et  semper,  O  Virgo,  Dei  Genetrix,  mater 
misericordiae,  benigna  et  elemens. 

"Virgo,  Domina  Dei  Genetrix,  quae  Salvatorem  Christum  et  Domi- 
num  nostrum  in  utero  portasti,  in  te  spem  meain  omnem  repono,  etin 
te  confido,  quae  sublimior  es  omnibus  coelestibus  potestatibus."  (De 
Sanct.  Dei  Gen.  Virgin.  M.  Laud.) 

Bishop  Ridley,  immediately  before  he  suffered,  seems  to  have 
imagined  that  departed  saints  might  pray  for  the  living.  "Brother 
Bradford,"  says  he  in  a  letter  to  that  martyr,  February,  1555,  "so 
long  as  I  shall  understand  that  thou  art  in  thy  journey,  by  God's 
grace,  I  shall  call  upon  our  heavenly  Father,  for  Christ's  sake,  to  see 
thee  safely  home;  and  then,  good  brother,  speak  you,  and  pray  for  the 
remnant  that  are  to  suffer  for  Christ's  sake,  according  to  that  thou  shall 
know  more  clearly."    See  his  Life  by  Ridley,  p.  572. 


334 


LETTERS  OX 


as  I  stated  formerly,  they  applied  to  them  to  assist 
them  in  recovering  stolen  goods,  and  to  protect  them 
at  sea,  and  to  deliver  them  from  the  licentious,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  nun  who  prayed  to  the  Virgin  to 
rescue  her  from  Cyprian,  when  before  his  conversion 
he  attempted  to  seduce  her.  And  so  great  was  the 
confidence  which  they  had  in  the  prayers  of  departed 
saints,  that  the  following  are  the  terms  in  which  thev 
were  mentioned  by  Nazianzen:  "I  am  persuaded," 
says  he,  in  his  19th  oration,  when  speaking  of  a  mar- 
tyr, "that  our  father's  intercession  now  avails  us 
more  than  his  teaching  did  ivhilepresent  ivith  us  in 
the  body,  now  that  he  has  got  near  to  God,  has  shaken 
off  the  fetters  of  the  body,  and  freed  from  the  mud  of 
earth  approaches  naked  the  naked  and  most  pure 
mind."  I  might  extend  these  observations  to  other 
superstitious  rites  and  practices  which  prevailed  very 
generally  in  the  early  Church,  and  which  neither  you 
nor  Bishop  Russel  would  be  disposed  to  maintain 
were  approved  by  the  Apostles.  But  if  you  admit 
that  the  errors  in  regard  to  doctrine,  and  the  supersti- 
tious practices  to  which  I  have  just  now  alluded, can- 
not be  considered  as  having  obtained  their  sanction, 
though  they  prevailed  so  generally  in  the  early 
Church,  you  have  no  right  to  draw  a  different  con- 
clusion respecting  diocesan  Episcopacy,  or  any  of  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  your  Church,  though  you 
could  prove  that  they  existed  from  the  earliest  times, 
and  were  as  generally  adopted,  unless  you  could  de- 
monstrate at  the  same  time  that  they  are  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures  as  having  been  instituted  by  the  Re- 
deemer, and  as  possessing  the  high  and  authoritative 
sanction  of  these  illustrious  ministers  of  the  only  King 
and  Head  of  the  Church. 

I  have  only  farther  to  observe,  that  in  rejecting  any 
order  in  the  Christian  ministry,  or  any  religious  rite 
which  rests  merely  on  tradition,  however  early,  and 
is  not  sanctioned  by  Scripture,  we  are  only  following 
the  example  of  the  fathers,  who  acted  upon  this 
principle,  and  rejected  opinions  and  religious  customs 
which  were  common  in  their  day,  though  they  rested 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


335 


on  traditions  which  were  asserted  to  have  come  down 
from  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  but  were  not  supported 
by  Scripture:  Eusebius,  for  instance,  gives  that  very 
reason  for  condemning  the  doctrine  which  was  taught 
by  Papias  respecting  the  Millennium,  and  which  was 
adopted  as  generally  by  the  early  fathers,  as,  accord- 
ing to  your  statement,  even  diocesan  episcopacy, 
namely,  that  it  rested  only  on  unwritten  tradition, 
from  the  days  of  John,  and  had  received  his  appro- 
bation. "Moreover,"  says  he,  "the  same  writer 
alleges  something  as  from  unwritten  tradition,  viz. 
some  strange  parables  and  doctrines  of  onr  Saviour, 
and  some  other  fabulous  things ;  and  amongst  the 
rest,  he  says,  that  after  the  resurrection  there  shall  be 
a  thousand  years,  wherein  Christ  shall  reign  on  earth 
bodily.  But  he  appears  to  me,  through  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  Apostle's  discourse,  to  have  taken 
what  was  spoken  mysteriously  in  a  different  sense 
from  the  true  meaning.  For  he  was  of  a  very  weak 
judgment,  as  appears  from  his  writings.  He  was, 
notwithstanding,  the  author  of  this  opinion  to  most 
of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  who  succeeded  him,  for 
Irenaens  and  those  who  favoured  his  opinion  looked 
only  to  his  antiquity."*  Irenaeus,  too,  as  he  is  quoted 
by  the  same  historian,  says,  respecting  the  controversy 
about  the  time  of  keeping  Easter,  that  "  this  difference 
did  not  arise  first  in  his  age,  but  long  before,  in  the 
time  of  their  fathers,  who,  as  is  probable,  being  neg- 
ligent in  their  government,  delivered  to  their  posterity 
a  custom  which  had  crept  in  only  through  simplicity 
and  ignorance. "t  And,  says  Socrates,  the  historian, 
"neither  the  more  ancient  nor  later  fathers,  who  were 
disposed  to  follow  these  Jewish  rites,  had  any  cause 
to  raise  so  great  contention  for  the  keeping  of  Easter 
and  such  holy  days,  the  observation  of  which  is 
not  enjoined  in  the  Gospel,"  (I  trust  that  you  and 
the  rest  of  the  Tractarians,  as  well  as  the  Scottish 
Episcopalians,  will  mark  this,)  "was  altogether  legal," 
i.  e.  ceremonial.    "  They  did  not  consider  that  after 


*  Lib.  iii.  cap.  39,  "  Kai  HKKt  h  o  ecun;,"  &.C.    t  Lib.  v  cap.  24. 


336 


LETTERS  ON 


the  Jewish  religion  was  changed  into  that  of  the  Chris- 
tians, the  strict  observation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
the  shadows  of  future  things,  were  entirety  abolished, 
which  may  be  thus  most  surely  evinced.  For  by  no 
law  of  Christ  is  it  granted  to  Christians  to  observe 
Jewish  customs.  Yea,  the  Apostle  expressly  forbade 
it,  not  only  setting  aside  circumcision,  but  admonishing 
them  that  about  feast  days  there  should  be  no  con- 
tention. And  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  confirm- 
ing the  same  declaration,  he  says,  "  the  priesthood 
being  changed,  there  is  also  a  change  of  the  law." 
After  which  he  adds,  when  accounting  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  holy  days  as  you  observe  in  your 
Church,  without  any  authority  from  Scripture,  "surely 
the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  never  imposed  a  yoke 
upon  those  that  became  obedient  to  the  doctrine  of 
faith,  but  Easter  and  other  holy  days  were  left  to  the 
choice  and  equity  of  those  who  in  such  days  had  re- 
ceived the  benefits.  IVherefure,  seeing  men  love  holy 
days  because  they  bring  them  some  respite  from  their 
labours,  different  individuals  in  different  places,  fol- 
lowing their  particular  inclinations,  according  to  a 
certain  custom,  celebrated  the  memory  of  our  Sa- 
viour's passion.  For  neither  our  Saviour  nor  his 
Apostles  by  any  law  ordained  that  it  should  be  ob- 
served;  neither  did  the  Gospel  nor  the  Apostles 
threaten  us  with  a  mulct,  punishment,  or  curse,  as  the 
law  of  Moses  was  wont  to  do  the  Jews."*    And  yet 

*  Lib.  v.  cap.  22.  "It  is  not,"  says  Bishop  Russel  in  his  Sermon, 
p.  40,  "the  keeping  of  those  fasts  and  festivals  which  commemorate 
the  great  events  of  our  holy  reiigion,  that  constitutes  the  real  difference 
between  Episcopalians  and  other  Christians,  for  in  many  parts  of  the 
Continent  they  observe  the  principal  festivals  and  fasts  of  the  Church, 
as  regularly  as  do  the  Episcopalians  among  whom  we  live."  But 
even  Socrates,  as  we  see,  declares  that  there  is  no  warrant  for  such 
festivals  in  Scripture,  nor  any  law  appointing  them.  And  the  ances- 
tors of  the  Continental  Protestants  condemned  them,  though,  with  a 
strange  inconsistency,  as  James  the  Sixth  remarked,  even  at  Geneva 
they  retained  "  Yule  and  Pasche."  "  In  a  National  Synod,"  says 
the  author  of  the  Re-examination  of  the  Five  Articles  of  Perth,  p. 
208,  "  holden  at  Dort,  anno  1578,  of  the  Belgick,  Almaine  and  French 
Churches,  we  have  these  words  :  '  Optanduin  foret  nostros  sex  diebus 
laborare,  et  diem  solum  dominie  um  celebrate?  Among  the  articles 
agreed  upon  and  concluded,  concerning  ecclesiastical  policic  in  the 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


337 


the  keeping  of  Easter  on  one  day  was  asserted  by 
Polycarp  and  the  Eastern  Church,  as  was  formerly 
noticed,  to  be  supported  by  a  tradition  respecting  the 
opinion  and  practice  of  the  Apostle  John ;  and  the 
keeping  of  it  on  a  different  day,  as  was  done  by  the 
Romish  Church,  was  supported  by  a  tradition  res- 

Palatinat,  anno  1602,  wc  have  this  following:  "Omnes  feriae  per 
annum  et  festi  dies  tollendi  e  medio.  All  the  festival!  dayes  through 
the  year  are  to  be  abolished"  Bucer,  howbcit,  not  one  of  the  preci- 
sest  reformers,  upon  Matthew  ii.  hath  tlicsc  words,  as  I  find  him 
cited  by  Amesius  in  his  Fresh  Suit,  p.  360,  "I  would  to  God  that 
every  holy  day  besides  the  Lord's  day  were  abolished.  That  zeal 
which  brought  them  first  in  was  without  all  warrant  or  example  of 
the  Scripture,  and  oncly  followed  naturall  reason  to  drive  out  the 
holy  dayes  of  the  Pagans,  as  it  were  to  drive  out  one  nail  with  an- 
other." 

"Farellus  and  Viret,"  it  is  elsewhere  remarked,  "  removed  all  ho'y 
dayes  out  of  the  Kirk  of  Geneva,  as  Calvin  testifies,  (Epist.  118.) 
The  same  decree  which  banished  Farellus  and  Calvin  out  of  Geneva 
brought  in  other  holy  dayes.  They  were  all  again  abrogate  except 
the  Sabbath  day.  Howsoever,  after  came  in  the  keeping  of  Pasche, 
and  the  Nativity.  Calvin  was  so  far  from  liking  of  holy  dayes,  that 
lie  was  slandered  of  intention  to  abolish  the  Lord's  day.  Yea,  Luther 
himselfe,  in  his  book  de  Bonis  Operibus,  set  forth  anno  1520,  wished 
that  there  were  no  feast  days  among  Christians  but  the  Lord's  day. 
And  in  his  booke  to  the  Nobilitie  of  Germanic,  he  saith,  Consultum 
esse,  &c.  it  were  expedient  that  all  feast  days  were  abrogate,  the 
Lord's  day  only  retained.  Howsoever  forraigne  divines  in  their 
epistles  and  councils  speak  sometimes  sparingly  against  holy  dayes, 
when  their  advice  was  sought  of  Kirks  newly  risen  out.  of  Popery, 
and  greatly  distressed;  they  never  advised  a  Kirk  to  resume  them 
when  they  were  removed,  neither  had  they  leisure  to  consider  nar- 
rowly the  corruption  of  every  error  that  prevailed  in  their  time,  the 
work  of  reformation  was  so  painful  to  them." 

And  the  following  are  the  terms  in  which  Bishop  Hooper  repro- 
bates all  such  festivals,  though  neither  Cranmer  nor  he  could  get 
them  abolished  in  the  Church  of  England.  "  It  is  against  this  com- 
mandment," (the  fourth,)  says  he,  "to  kepc  or  dedicate  ony  fast  to 
ony  sainct,  of  what  holinis  soever  he  be.  Therefore  saith  the  law, 
ye  shall  celebrate  the  fest  unto  the  Lord  ;  Exod.  xxiii.  This  honor 
shuld  be  gyven  only  unto  God.  In  the  Old  Testament  Idas  no  fest 
ever  dedicated  to  ony  sainct,  neither  in  the  New.  It  happened  after 
the  deth  of  the  Apostellcs,  as  it  is  written  in  Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.  lib. 
iv.  cap.  15,  and  bi  tter  auctorite  have  they  not  that  be  the  auctors  of 
these  holy  dayes,  the  which  the  Consel  of  Lugd.  hath  geven  us.  They 
have  not  above  two  hundred  and  seventy  three  yers  in  aigc,  and  is 
the  levyn  of  the  Pope."  Such  is  the  Bishop's  account  of  the  origin  of 
Bishop  Russcl's  holy  days,  for  which  he  praises  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  the  Scottish  Episcopalians.  Declaration  of  the  Ten  Holy 
Commandments,  p.  115. 

22 


338 


LETTERS  ON  PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


pecting  the  opinion  and  practice  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
handed  down  from  the  time  of  these  Apostles.  But 
if  the  fathers  themselves,  for  whom  you  profess  such 
deference,  rejected  opinions  and  religious  rites  which 
rested  merely  on  unwritten  traditions,  however  early, 
and  however  general,  but  which  were  not  sanctioned 
by  Scripture,  we  are  only  following  the  example 
which  they  have  set  us,  when  we  reject  the  claims 
of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  and  all  your  rites,  even 
though  you  should  be  able  to  show  that  they  existed 
generally  in  the  Christian  Church  from  the  earliest 
ages,  and  were  recommended  by  traditions  extending 
backwards  to  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles,  unless 
you  can  prove  that  they  are  recommended  or  ap- 
pointed in  the  Word  of  God.* 
I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  Even  Cyprian  uses  the  following-  language  respecting  a  tradition, 
of  which  he  disapproved:  "  Unde  est  ista  traditio  ?  Utrumne  dc 
dominica  et  evangelica  auctoritate  descendens,  an  de  Apostoloruin 
mandatis  atque  Epistolis  veniens?"  Epist.  74,  ad  Pompon,  p.  192. 
And  says  Whitaker  of  the  whole  of  the  early  fathers,  (and  he  was 
one  of  the  most  learned  and  distinguished  theologians  that  ever  filled 
the  high  situation  of  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge,) "  We  may  warrantably  reject  all  human  testimonies,  and 
insist  upon  some  clear  Scripture  testimony.  For  this  is  the  constant 
sense  of  all  the  Catholic  fathers,  that  nothing  is  to  be  received  or 
approved  in  religion  which  is  not  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
Scripture,  and  which  cannot  be  proved  and  confirmed  out  of  these 
sacred  writings.  And  very  deservedly,  since  the  Scripture  is  an  abso- 
lute and  sufficient  rule  of  truth."  Treatise  against  Bellarmine,  Con- 
trov.  ii.  quaest.  5,  cap.  6.  p.  506. 


339 


LETTER  XXI. 

If  tlio  reasoning  employed  in  the  two  preceding  letters  be  well  founded,  it 
will  not  follow  that  diocesan  Episcopacy  received  the  approbation  of  the 
Apostles,  though  it  could  be  proved  that  it  existed  in  the  age  next  to  the 
apostolic,  unless  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  they  had  expressed  their 
approbation  of  it  in  their  writings; — but  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  ex- 
isted in  that  early  age. — The  mere  catalogues  of  bishops,  to  which  Epis- 
copalians appeal,  will  not  establish  this,  unless  they  can  show  that  these 
bishops  had  the  same  powers  which  belong  exclusively  to  their  prelates. — 
This,  how  ever,  they  have  never  yet  done  ;  and  Jerome  declares,  that  even 
toward  the  end  ol  the  fourth  century  the  power  of  ordination  alone  dis- 
tinguished a  bishop  from  a  presbyter. — In  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  and 
his  Epistle  to  Ev  agrius,  he  represents  bishops  and  presbyters  as  the  same, 
not  only  in  name,  but  in  authority,  ar.d  diocesan  Episcopacy  as  a  mere 
human  institution,  introduced  by  the  Church  to  prevent  schism. — He  de- 
scribes it  further  as  adopted  hi/  degrees,  as  divisions  arose  in  different 
C/iurr/,es  or  nations,  by  a  decree  ot  each  of  the  Churches,  and  not  of  any 
general  council,  and  as  having  commenced,  not  at  the  time  of  the  schism 
in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  referred  to  by  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  that 
Church,  but  after  the  writing  of  the  third  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  death 
of  the  Apostles. — This  represented  as  ihe  opinion  of  Jerome,  as  staled  in 
his  writings,  by  Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  and  the  most  eminent  foreign 
Reformers,  by  Ihe  Wirtemburg  Confession  and  the  Articles  of  Smalkatd, 
and  by  Jewel,  Willel,  Whitaker,  and  many  other  learned  and  distinguish- 
ed divines  of  the  Church  of  England. 

Reverend  Sir, — I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  in  the 
preceding  letter,  that  though  you  could  succeed  in 
proving  diocesan  Episcopacy  to  have  existed  in  the 
Church  in  the  very  age  next  to  the  Apostles,  and  that 
it  had  been  regarded  subsequently  as  an  apostolic 
institution,  we  would  be  justified  in  refusing  to  it  that 
high  character,  unless  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  it 
was  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  And  I  have  attempted 
to  prove  that  it  has  no  such  sanction,  presbyters  being 
the  highest  order  of  office-bearers  among  the  standing 
ministers  of  the  Christian  Church,  who  are  represented 
as  bishops,  and  no  one  being  ever  called  by  that  name 
who  was  a  diocesan  bishop.  Nay,  not  only  are  pres- 
byters denominated  bishops,  and  the  same  qualifica- 
tions required  from  them  that  are  necessary  in  bishops, 
but,  as  the  celebrated  Armacanus  remarks,  when  Paul 
enumerates  the  different  orders,  he  mentions  no  middle 
order  between  the  presbyter-bishop  and  the  deacon. 
"  It  is  evident,"  says  he,  after  quoting  the  words  of 
the  Apostle  to  Timothy  about  bishops  and  deacons  in 


340 


LETTERS  ON 


his  first  Epistle,  that  "  between  the  episcopal,"  or  pres- 
byter episcopal  "  order,  and  that  of  the  deacon,  there  is 
no  middle  order,  since  if  there  were  any,  we  cannot 
doubt  that  that  illustrious  Doctor,  who,  as  he  tells  the 
Galatians,  ch.  i.,  received  his  Gospel  from  Christ  him- 
self, would  have  instructed  his  beloved  disciple  Timo- 
thy respecting  it,  and  would  have  given  him  rules  in 
regard  to  it,  as  he  gave  him  respecting  the  higher  and 
lower  orders,"*  Such  an  omission  is  altogether  inex- 
plicable, on  the  supposition  that  presbyters,  who  are 
represented  as  bishops,  were  inferior  to  them,  and 
were  to  constitute  only  a  middle  order.  And  if  you 
can  account  for  it,  and  for  the  want  of  the  slightest 
notice  of  the  qualifications  which  are  required  in  such 
bishops,  that  those  who  aspire  to  that  high  office  may 
know  whether  they  are  fit  for  it,  and  those  to  whom 
they  apply  for  ordination  may  know  whether  they 
ought  to  grant  it,  you  will  have  the  honour  of  per- 
forming what  has  never  yet  been  accomplished  by  any 
of  the  former  defenders  of  Episcopacy,  from  the  time 
of  Epiphanius  till  the  present  day. 

I  am  aware  that  the  present  curate  of  Derry,  one  of 
the  most  zealous  though  not  the  most  intelligent  and 
judicious  advocates  of  your  ecclesiastical  polity,  ob- 
jects to  our  reasoning,  when  we  infer  the  equality,  if 
not  the  perfect  identity,  of  presbyters  and  bishops; 
because  presbyters  are  distinguished  by  the  name  of 
bishops,  just  as  we  infer  the  equality  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father  in  the  ever-blessed  Godhead,  because  the 
highest  names  characteristic  of  divinity  which  are 
bestowed  on  the  first  are  applied  to  the  second  person 
in  the  Trinity.  "The  man,"  says  he,  "who  would 
rest  his  cause  (the  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son) 
upon  it,"  i.  e.  the  application  to  him  of  these  names, 
"  would  be  subjected  to  a  logical  defeat,  for  he  would 

*  "  Constat  quod  inter  ordinem  episcopalem  et  inter  ordinem  dia- 
conatus  non  est  ordo  mcdius,  quoniam  si  quis  esset,  non  dubium, 
quin  iste  Doctor  maximus,  qui  suum  Evangelium  recepit  a  Christo, 
ut  ipse  scribit  ad  Gal.  i.,  suum  dilectum  discipulum  Timotheum  de 
isto  ordine  instruxisset,  et  ei  regulam  dedisset,  sicut  de  superiori  et 
inferiori  regulas  dedit."  Ric.  Armacan.  lib.  ii.  quaest.  Armen.  cap. 
v.  fol.  84. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


341 


be  at  once  open  to  the  reply,  that  if  Christ  be  God, 
because  he  is  called  God,  magistrates  and  princes  are, 
for  a  similar  reason,  gods;  that  if  Christ  be  God, 
because  styled  God,  Baal  and  Ashtaroth  are,  for  a 
similar  reason,  gods."*  Now,  I  would  ask  this  writer, 
who  is  equally  rash  in  his  remarks  on  some  of  the 
leading  doctrines  of  theology,  as  in  some  of  his  argu- 
ments in  defence  of  Episcopacy,  where  he  finds  the 
highest  names  which  are  applied  to  the  Supreme  and 
Eternal  God  given  to  angels,  or  magistrates  and  prin- 
ces, or  to  Baal  and  Ashtaroth?  Any  of  them  may  be 
called  0ft>s  but  I  challenge  him  to  produce  a  single 
passage  where  he  is  called  o  0sos,  a  name  which  even 
Socinians  and  Arians  admit  is  peculiar  to  the  Supreme 
God.  And  yet  that  name  is  bestowed  on  the  blessed 
Redeemer  by  God  the  Father,  (Hebrews  i.  8,)  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  (Romans  ix.  5,)  and  by  the  Apostle 
Thomas,  (John  xx.  28,)  as  well  as  in  other  passages. 
And  any  of  them  may  be  distinguished  by  other 
inferior  names,  which  are  applied  occasionally  to  the 
persons  in  the  Godhead.  But  I  call  upon  him  to  point 
out  a  single  passage  where  they  are  called  Jehovah, 
that  incommunicable  name,  which  is  represented  by 
the  Psalmist  as  peculiar  to  him  who  is  "  the.  most  high 
over  all  the  earth,"  (Ps.  lxxxiii.  18,)  or,  as  it  is  ex-, 
pressed  by  Dr.  Waterland,  who,  in  his  masterly  wri- 
tings on  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour,  will  be  acknow- 
ledged by  most  to  have  thought  as  closely  and  argued 
as  ably  as  the  curate  of  Derry,  "which  is  a  word  of 
absolute  signification,  and  is  the  incommunicable  name 
of  the  one  true  God."t  And  yet  we  know  that  that 
name  is  given  to  the  Redeemer  by  God  the  Father, 
(compare  Ps.  cii.  12,  26,  with  Hebrews  i.  8,  10,  12,) 
and  by  the  Apostle  John,  (compare  Isaiah  vi.  1-3, 10, 
with  John  xii.  37,  39,  41,)  as  well  as  in  other  pas- 
sages. The  argument,  therefore,  for  the  supreme  and 
eternal  divinity  of  the  Son,  from  his  being  represented 
by  these  names,  is  perfectly  conclusive;  and  if  we  are 

*  Sec  his  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  24. 

t  Defence  of  some  Queries  relating  to  Dr.  Clark's  Scheme  of  the 
Trinity,  p.  57. 


342 


LETTERS  ON 


right  in  inferring,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Boyd,  his 
equality  to  the  Father  from  his  receiving  these  names, 
as  was  maintained  by  Bishop  Bull,  Dr.  Waterland, 
and  Bishop  Horsley,  we  are  justified  in  inferring  the 
equality  of  presbyters  to  scriptural  bishops,  because 
they  are  represented  as  bishops.  And  as  no  other 
bishops,  or  standing  ministers,  under  any  other  name, 
are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  we  are  war- 
ranted further  in  drawing  the  conclusion,  that,  as  far 
as  is  revealed  in  the  sacred  volume,  they  are  the 
highest  order  of  Christian  ministers  appointed  by 
the  Redeemer,  and  the  only  bishops. 

You  will  tell  me,  however,  that  diocesan  bishops 
existed  universally  in  the  Christian  Church  from  the 
earliest  ages,  and  that  for  fifteen  hundred  years  Epis- 
copacy was  regarded  as  an  apostolic  institution.  Such 
I  am  sensible  was  the  statement  of  Bancroft,  Chilling- 
worth,  and  Leslie,  in  former  times;  and  such  is  the 
statement  which  has  been  made  recently  in  almost 
every  page  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  and  in  terms  of  the 
boldest  and  most  confident  assertion,  as  if  it  did  not 
admit  of  a  single  doubt,  or  of  the  smallest  contradic- 
tion. I  propose,  accordingly,  in  concluding  these  let- 
ters, to  inquire  into  the  fact;  while,  if  it  should  even 
correspond  to  the  statement,  since  the  Apostles  them- 
selves have  never  told  us  that  they  sanctioned  it,  I 
would  object  to  the  inference,  that  diocesan  Epis- 
copacy was  a  divine  institution. 

Now,  in  examining  this  statement,  I  beg  to  premise, 
that  it  will  not  be  enough  to  convince  me  of  its  accu- 
racy, though  you  should  bring  forward  lists  of  different 
individuals  in  after  times  denominated  bishops,  who 
occupied  the  Sees  in  the  various  quarters  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  from  the  very  age  which  was  next  to  the 
Apostles  till  the  present  day.  It  Avill  not  satisfy  me 
that  they  were  diocesan  bishops,  to  tell  me  merely 
that  they  had  the  names  of  bishops;  but  I  must  have 
more  precise,  and  distinct,  and  full  information  from 
unexceptionable  witnesses  as  to  the  extent  of  their 
j)oivers,  and  must  see  that  they  were  the  same  as  to 
ecclesiastical  matters  which  are  possessed  by  your 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


343 


bishops,  and  which  are  exercised  by  the  prelates 
among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians.  I  must  see  that 
they  were  not  merely  the  moderators  or  chairmen  of 
the  councils  of  presbyters  in  the  different  churches, 
who  were  only  the  primi  infer  pares,  the  first  among 
equals,  chosen  annually  like  the  Ae,z°v*ts  ETtuvvpot.  at 
Athens,  each  of  whom  was  denominated  in  his  turn 
the  Archon  for  the  year,  and  presided  over  the  rest ; 
which,  according  to  some,  as  was  formerly  mentioned, 
is  the  only  principle  on  which  you  can  explain  the 
apparently  contradictory  accounts  given  by  the  fathers 
of  the  order  of  succession  among  the  first  four  bishops 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  And  I  must  see  that  even 
afterwards,  when  a  change  was  introduced,  they  were 
not  merely  standing  moderators  with  the  name  of 
bishops,  because  they  summoned  when  they  thought 
fit  the  councils  of  the  presbyters  to  meet  and  delibe- 
rate about  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  possessing 
only  the  powers  of  the  annual  moderators.  All  this 
must  be  ascertained  ;  and  it  must  be  proved  that  the 
authority  committed  to  the  bishops  was  far  more  ex- 
tensive than  was  vested  in  these  moderators  with  the 
designation  of  bishops,  and  was  equal  to  that  which 
has  been  conferred  upon  your  prelates,  before  the  ar- 
gument, brought  from  the  lists  of  bishops  in  the  dif- 
ferent Churches,  can  have  the  smallest  weight  to  con- 
vince me  of  the  fact  asserted  in  your  statement,  and 
that  of  other  Episcopalians,  namely,  that  diocesan 
Episcopacy  existed  universally  in  the  Christian  Church 
from  the  earliest  ages.  Now,  I  request  to  know, 
whether  you  or  Mr.  Boyd  can  give  me  this  informa- 
tion? He  has  furnished  the  names  of  the  bishops  of 
two  of  the  Asiatic  Churches,*  and  said  very  properly, 
that  "  it  was  surely  unnecessary  to  pursue  that  line  of 
proof  any  further;"  and  as  he  produced  nothing  more 
as  a  proof,  it  was  unquestionably  right  that  he  should 
stop.  .Will  he  have  the  goodness  to  accompany  it  in 
the  next  edition,  or  in  some  future  publication,  witli  a 
well-attested  account  of  the  extent  of  the  powers 
which  were  entrusted  to  these  ministers? 


*  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  114-117. 


344 


LETTERS  ON 


I  feel  it  to  be  the  more  necessary  to  obtain  this  in- 
formation, because  it  was  common  with  the  fathers, 
as  was  proved  formerly  in  one  of  these  letters,  to  re- 
present the  Apostles  as  the  bishops  of  Churches  in 
which  they  had  laboured  for  a  time,  though  they  sus- 
tained a  much  higher  and  more  important  character, 
and  to  ascribe  to  their  successors  the  very  same 
powers  which  were  exercised  by  these  distinguished 
early  ministers  ;  and  the  same  language  is  used  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  respecting  Timothy,  and 
Titus,  and  others  of  the  Evangelists.  It  is  plain, 
however,  that  any  list  of  bishops  in  one  of  these 
Churches  which  begins  either  with  an  Apostle  or  an 
Evangelist,  commences  with  an  error,  and  is  conse- 
quently vitiated ;  for  being  a  minister  of  a  greatly 
superior  order,  he  could  not  sink  into  a  bishop.  And 
as  his  name  ought  never  to  have  been  placed  on  the 
list  of  these  ordinary  ministers,  so  it  is  not  enough  to 
present  to  me  a  catalogue  of  those  who  succeeded 
him,  but  you  must  furnish  me  with  a  distinct  and 
well-authenticated  account  of  the  extent  of  their 
powers ;  and  you  are  not  to  take  for  granted,  that 
because  they  were  bishops,  they  were  invested  with 
the  same  amount  of  spiritual  authority  over  other 
ministers  which  he  could  exercise  in  virtue  of  his 
high  and  extraordinary  office,  while  he  was  engaged 
in  founding  and  organizing  these  Churches.  Besides, 
Bishop  Burnet  admits  that  "the  names  of  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  not  only  used  for  the  same  thing  in 
Scripture,  but  are  also  used  promiscuously  by  the 
writers  of  the  two  first  centuries."*  And  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  writings  of  Irenaeus,  and  of  others  of 
the  fathers,  that  his  observation  is  just,  and  that 
Bishop  Russel  is  mistaken  when  he  affirms,!  that 
"immediately  after  the  demise  of  the  Apostles,  the 
term  Bishop  was  applied  (appropriated)  to  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  government  of  the  Church,"  or  diocesan 
prelates.  So  far  was  this  from  being  the  case  that 
Irenaeus  represents  presbyters  as  preserving  the  very 
succession  from  the  Apostles  in  the  episcopate,  and  as 

*  Conference,  p.  310.  t  Sermon,  p.  30. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


345 


the  bishops  whom  it  was  foretold  by  the  prophets 
that  God  would  give  to  the  Church.  "Wherefore," 
says  he,  in  his  Fourth  Book  against  Heresies,  c.  43, 
"  we  ought  to  hear  those  presbyters  who  are  in  the 
Church,  who  have  the  succession  from  the  Apostles, 
and  who,  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  have 
received  the  gift  of  the  truth  according  to  the  plea- 
sure of  the  Father."*  And  he  says,  in  the  following 
chapter,  "Such  presbyters  the  Church  nourishes,  of 
whom  also  the  prophet  says,  I  will  give  thee  thy 
princes  or  rulers  in  peace,  and  thy  bishops  in  right- 
eousness.! But  if  presbyters  were  the  ministers  who 
preserved  the  succession  in  the  episcopate  from  the 
Apostles  to  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  and  who  were  then 
considered  as  the  bishops  whom  God  had  promised 
to  give  to  the  Church,  how  is  this  consistent  with 
their  being  no  longer  bishops,  nor  the  bishops  pre- 
dicted by  the  prophets,  and  subordinate  to  a  higher 
order  of  ministers,  who  long  before  that  time  had  be- 
come the  only  bishops?  And,  in  short,  it  is  indispen- 
sable that  you  should  furnish  us  with  this  information 
about  the  powers  of  the  bishops,  whose  names  are  in 
the  lists  of  the  early  Churches,  that  we  may  see 
whether  they  were  really  distinct  from  presbyters, 
and  if  so,  how  far  they  were  superior ;  for  it  would 
appear  from  what  is  mentioned  by  Jerome,  that  even 
in  the  fourth  century  they  were  greatly  inferior,  in 
respect  to  their  authority,  not  only  to  your  prelates, 
but  even  to  those  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians. 
Your  bishops  possess  the  exclusive  power  of  ad- 
ministering confirmation,  exercising  jurisdiction,  and 
conferring  orders,  but  it  was  not  so  with  the  bishops, 
nearly  three  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the 
Apostles ;  for,  says  that  father,  and  he  was  not  con- 
tradicted by  Epiphanius,  or  any  of  his  contempo- 
raries,) "what  does  a  bishop  perform,  (ordination 

*  "Quapropter  eis  qui  in  Ecclesia  sunt  prcsbytcris  obaudirc  opor- 
tet,  his  qui  successioncm  habent  ab  Apostolis,  sicut  ostendimus,  qui 
cum  episcopatus  successione  charisma  vcritatis  ccrtum  secundum 
placitum  Patris  acccpcrunt." 

+  "Tales  presbytcros  nutrit  ecclesia,  de  quibus  et  propheta  ait,  Et 
dabo  principes  tuos  in  pace,  et  episcopos  tuos  in  justitia." 


346 


LETTERS  ON 


excepted,)  which  a  presbyter  cannot  do?"*  But  if 
the  bishops  who  lived  at  such  a  distance  from  the 
Apostles  were  distinguished  from  presbyters  only  as 
to  the  power  of  ordination,  and  not  as  to  the  powers 
of  confirmation  or  jurisdiction,  which  are  possessed 
exclusively  as  well  as  the  former  by  modern  bishops, 
it  presents  a  very  strong  additional  reason  why,  along 
with  the  names  in  the  list  of  bishops  in  the  second 
century,  you  should  furnish  us  with  an  exact  account 
of  their  powers,  that  we  may  see  whether  at  that 
time  they  differed  from  presbyters  even  as  to  the 
power  of  ordination,  which,  in  the  days  of  Jerome, 
appears  to  have  been  their  only  peculiar  privilege. 

Jerome,  however,  who  is  acknowledged  univer- 
sally to  have  been  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  and  whose  veracity,  I  believe,  has  never  been 
questioned,  makes  another  statement  of  far  greater 
importance  respecting  diocesan  Episcopacy,  namely, 
that  even  in  the  comparatively  limited  form  in  which 
it  existed  in  his  time,  it  was  not  appointed  by  Christ, 
nor  sanctioned  by  the  Apostles ;  and  while  he  repre- 
sents it  as  a  mere  human  institution,  mentions  the 
circumstances  which  led  to  its  introduction.  But  as 
I  write  only  to  ascertain  what  is  truth,  and  not  for 
victory,  and  as  I  would  be  sorry  to  impute  to  him  a 
single  sentiment  which  he  did  not  really  hold,  or  to 
deduce  from  his  words  a  single  inference  in  favour  of 
my  principles  which  they  do  not  fairly  warrant,  I  take 
the  liberty  to  select  from  his  writings  the  following 
passages : 

"Let  us  attend  carefully,"  says  he  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  Titus,  "to  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  (Titus, 
i.  5,)  that  thou  shouldst  ordain  presbyters  in  every 
city,  as  I  have  appointed  thee.  Pointing  out  after- 
wards what  sort  of  presbyters  should  be  ordained,  he 
says,  if  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
&c. ;  after  which  he  adds,  for  a  bishop  must  be  blame- 
less, as  the  steward  of  God.  A  presbyter,  therefore, 
is  the  same  as  a  bishop  ;  and  before,  through  the  in- 

*  "  Quid  enim  facit  excepta  ordinatione  episcopus  quod  presbyter 
non  faciat?" 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


347 


stigation  of  the  devil,  there  were  different  parties  in 
religion,  and  it  was  said  among  different  people  (or 
states,)  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas, 
the  Churches  were  governed  by  the  common  council 
of  presbyters.  But  afterwards,  when  every  one 
thought  that  those  whom  he  had  baptized  belonged 
to  himself,  and  not  to  Christ,  it  was  determined 
throughout  the  whole  world,  that  one  chosen  from 
the  presbyters  should  be  placed  over  the  rest,  to  whom 
the  care  of  the  whole  Church  should  belong,  and  the 
seeds  of  schisms  should  be  taken  away. 

"  If  any  one  should  think  that  this  is  merely  my 
opinion,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  let 
him  read  again  the  words  of  the  Apostles  to  the  Phi- 
lippians,  '  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at 
Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons,  grace  to  you 
and  peace,'  &c.  Philippi  is  a  single  city  of  Mace- 
donia ;  and  certainly  in  one  city  there  could  not  be 
several  bishops,  as  they  are  now  denominated,  or  of 
the  kind  that  now  exist.  But  because  at  that  time 
they  called  the  same  persons  bishops  who  were  pres- 
byters, he  has  spoken  indifferently  of  bishops  as  of 
presbyters. 

"  If  this  should  still  appear  doubtful  to  any  one,  un- 
less it  be  confirmed  by  another  testimony,  it  is  written 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  when  the  Apostle  had 
come  to  Miletus,  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the 
presbyters  of  the  same  Church,  to  whom  afterwards 
he  said  among  other  things,  Take  heed  to  yourselves, 
and  to  all  the  flock  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
placed  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which 
he  has  purchased  with  his  blood.  Observe  carefully, 
that  when  calling  the  presbyters  of  that  one  city  Ephe- 
sus, he  afterwards  denominated  the  same  persons 
bishops.  If  any  one  is  willing  to  receive  that  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  ascribed  to  Paul,  there  also 
the  care  of  the  Church  is  divided  among  a  plurality  of 
rulers  ;  for  says  he,  Obey  them  who  have  the  rule  over 
you,  and  be  subject  to  them,  for  they  watch  for  your 
souls,  as  those  who  must  give  an  account,  &c.  And 


348 


LETTERS  ON 


the  Apostle  Peter,  who  received  his  name  from  the 
firmness  of  his  faith,  speaks  in  the  same  way  in  his 
Epistle,  saying,  the  presbyters  who  are  among  you,  I 
beseech,  who  am  your  fellow  presbyter,  and  a  witness 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  &c.  The  object  for  which 
we  state  these  things,  is  to  show  that  among  the  an- 
cients, presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same;  but 
that  by  little  and  little,  that  the  plants  of  dissensions 
might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  care  of  the  Church 
was  committed  to  one.  As  the  presbyters,  therefore, 
know  that  they  are  subject  by  the  custom  of  the 
Church  to  him  who  is  placed  over  them,  so  let  bishops 
know  that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  more  by 
custom  than  by  any  real  appointment  of  the  Lord ; 
and  that  they  ought  to  govern  the  Church  along  with 
the  presbyters,  imitating  Moses,  who,  when  he  alone 
was  to  preside  over  the  people  of  Israel,  chose  seventy, 
with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people."* 

Again,  he  says  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  "  I  hear 
that  a  certain  individual  has  discovered  such  madness, 
as  to  place  deacons  above  presbyters,  that  is,  bishops; 
for  when  the  Apostle  plainly  teaches  that  presbyters 
are  the  same  persons  who  are  also  bishops,  who  can 
endure  that  a  minister  who  waits  only  on  the  tables  of 
the  poor,  and  widows,  should  in  his  pride  exalt  him- 
self above  those  at  whose  prayers  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  made  ?  Hear  a  testimony  in  proof  of 
this."  After  which  he  quotes  the  different  passages 
referred  to  in  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  and  then  adds, 
"  Do  these  testimonies  of  such  men  appear  to  you  of 
little  weight  ?  Let  the  evangelical  trumpet  sound  in 
your  ears,  the  son  of  thunder  whom  Jesus  loved,  who 
drank  copiously  the  streams  of  doctrine  from  the  breast 
of  the  Saviour.  The  Presbyter  to  the  elect  Lady  and 
her  children,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth  ;  and  in  another 
Epistle,  The  Presbyter  to  the  well  beloved  Gaius, 
whom  I  love  in  the  truth.  And  that  one  was  after- 
wards chosen,  who  was  placed  (or  presided  over, 

*  "  Diligenter  Apostoli  verba  attendamus  dicentis,  ut  constituas 
per  civitates  presbyteros  sicut  ego  tibi  disposui  qui  qualis  presbyter 
debeat  ordinari,"  &c. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


349 


praeponeretur,)  the  rest,  was  a  remedy  which  was 
adopted  against  schism,  lest  every  one  drawing  the 
Church  to  his  party  should  break  it  in  pieces.  For 
also  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark,  the  Evangelist,  to  the 
Bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  (or,  according  to 
Blonde!,*  till  a.  d.  246,)  "the  presbyters  always  named 
as  bishop  one  chosen  from  among  themselves,  and 
placed  him  in  a  higher  degree,  in  the  same  manner  as 
if  an  army  should  make  an  emperor,  or  the  deacons 
should  choose  from  among  themselves  an  industrious 
man,  and  call  him  Archdeacon."  After  which  he  re- 
marks respecting  the  terms,  presbyters  and  bishops, 
which  he  had  said  were  applied  to  the  same  persons, 
that  "  the  one  was  a  name  expressive  of  age,  the  other 
of  dignity ;  whence,  when  directions  are  delivered  to 
Titus  and  Timothy  about  the  ordination  of  the  bishop 
and  the  deacon,  the  Apostle  is  entirely  silent  about 
presbyters,  because  the  presbyter  is  comprehended  in 
the  bishop."t  Now,  upon  the  account  which  is  given 
in  these  passages  of  the  rise  of  Episcopacy  by  this 
early  father,  who  lived  so  near  to  the  Apostles,  and  of 
whom  Augustine  says,  that  "no  man  knew  any  thing 
which  was  unknown  to  Jerome,"  and  Erasmus  testi- 
fies that  he  was  "  without  controversy  the  most  learn- 
ed of  all  Christians,  and  the  prince  of  divines,"  I  would 
make  the  following  observations  : 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  gratuitous  and  unworthy 
insinuation  of  Mr.  Boyd,  for  which  he  has  not  pro- 
duced a  particle  of  evidence,  that  Jerome  was  induced 
to  deliver  this  statement,  because  "  his  expectations  in 
life  were  disappointed,  and  that  disappointment  vent- 
ed itself  in  the  acerbities  which  mark  his  writings;  or 
that  there  was  that  in  the  haughtiness  or  the  worldli- 
ness  of  the  bishops  of  his  time  which  excited  his  dis- 
pleasure. "%  No  such  acerbities  appear  in  these 
passages,  but  they  express  his  calm  and  deliberate 
opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  Episcopacy  ;  and  if,  under 

*  Apologia  pro  Sententia  Hicronymi,  p.  7. 

t  "  Audio  quondam  in  tantam  erupisse  vaecordiam  ut  diaconos  pres- 
byteris,  id  est,  Episcopis  anleferret,"  &.C. 
t  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  123. 


350 


LETTERS  ON 


the  influence  of  these  feelings,  he  could  deliver  a  tes- 
timony respecting  a  matter  of  such  moment,  which  he 
knew  to  be  false,  so  far  from  being  worthy  of  being 
represented  by  Bishop  Hurd  as  "  the  most  esteemed, 
as  well  as  the  ablest  of  the  fathers/'  he  would  be  de- 
serving of  contempt. 

2dly,  It  was  the  general  opinion,  not  only  of  the 
most  eminent  individuals  who  laboured  for  the  spirit- 
ual improvement  of  the  Church  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, but  of  the  leading  Protestants  at  that  memorable 
period,  and  for  ages  afterwards,  that  the  doctrine  taught 
in  these  passages,  is,  that  bishops  are  not  superior  to 
presbyters  by  divine  appointment,  and  that  the  eleva- 
tion of  the  former  above  the  latter  is  a  device  of  men, 
and  not  an  institution  of  God.  I  may  refer  in  proof 
of  this  to  Laurentius  Valla,  a  noble  Roman,  and  dis- 
tinguished divine,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Cave,  flourish- 
ed a.  d.  1440,  who,  in  his  Commentary  on  Acts  xv. 
after  quoting  Acts  xx.  28,  says,  "  As  to  this,  that  the 
same  persons  were  presbyters  who  are  here  said  to  be 
bishops,  I  need  not  employ  many  words,  since  it  is 
proved  by  Jerome  on  Titus."*  It  was  the  view  of 
their  meaning  taken  by  Luther,  who  says  in  his  Dis- 
putation at  Leipsic,  (torn.  i.  of  his  works,)  "  that  Jerome 
makes  bishops  equal  among  themselves,  and  presby- 
ters equal  to  bishops,  and  that  any  inequality  which 
took  place  afterwards  arose  from  custom  and  expedi- 
ency."t  It  was  the  view  of  their  meaning  which  was 
entertained  by  Melancthon,  for,  says  he,  "  Jerome 
plainly  testifies  that  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  not 
different  grades"  or  orders  "  by  divine  right;" %  by  Cal- 
vin, who,  after  remarking  that  diocesan  Episcopacy 
"  was  an  arrangement  introduced  by  human  agree- 
ment," adds,  "  Thus  Jerome,  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 

*  "De  hoc  quod  iidem  fuerunt  presbyteri  qui  episcopi,  non  est  pluri- 
bus  agendum,  quod  ab  Hieronymo  super  Epistola  ad  Titum  probatur." 

t  "Hieronymus  non  rnodo  episcopos  aequat  inter  se,  sed  et  presby- 
teros  episcopis  comparat.  Patet  itaque  re  ipsa  aequales  episcopos  inter 
se  et  presbyteros,  solo  usu  et  ecclesiae  causa,  alium  alii  praeferendum." 

t  Tract,  de  Ordine,  torn.  ii.  Oper.  p.  867.  "  Imo  Hieronymus  aperte 
testatur,  non  esse  jure  divino  diversos  gradus  episcopum  et  presby- 
terutn." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


351 


says,  a  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop;"  by  Bullin- 
eer,  (Decad.  3,Sermo  3);  by  Zanchius  on  the  Fourth 
Commandment;  by  Danaeus,  (in  Augustini  de  Haeres., 
Haer.  53);  Chemnitz,  (Examen  Concil.  Trident.  Pars 
2,  de  Sacrament,  ord.);  Junius,  (Controv.  5  lib.  l,cap. 
15,)  and  many  others.  Nay,  it  was  the  view  taken 
of  them  in  all  the  Confessions  of  the  Churches  of  the 
Reformation.  Thus  the  Wirtemburgh  Confession,  in 
the  chapter  on  Order,  says,  "  Jerome  teaches  that  a 
bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same."*  And  you  can- 
not fail  to  recollect,  that  in  the  quotations  which  were 
produced  from  the  Articles  of  Smalkald,  in  a  former 
letter,  and  which  were  subscribed  by  so  many  thou- 
sands of  the  foreign  Reformers,  the  very  same  view  is 
given  of  their  import.  "  Jerome,"  say  they,  "  teaches 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, but  that  all  pastors  are  also  bishops.  And  he 
alleges  that  text  of  Paul,  (Titus  i.  5,)  1  Therefore  left 
I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  ordain  presbyters 
in  every  city."t  And  again,  "  Here  Jerome  teaches 
that  the  different  degrees  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
were  established  solely  by  human  authority;  and  this 
is  evident  from  the  thing  itself,  for  the  office  and  the 
directions  respecting  those  who  are  to  be  appointed  to 
it  are  the  same. "J  Nay,  such  was  the  view  which 
was  entertained  of  their  meaning  by  many  of  the  most 
learned  and  able  divines  of  your  own  Church.  I  shall 
prove  immediately  that  it  was  held  by  Dr.  Whitaker, 
who  replies  triumphantly  to  the  very  same  objections 
against  this  interpretation  of  these  passages,  when 
urged  by  Bishop  Russel,the  curate  of  Deny,  and  other 
modern  Episcopalians,  when  they  were  adduced  for- 
merly by  Sanders  the  Papist,  a  most  zealous  defender 

*  "  Docct  autem  Hieronymus  eundcm  esse  et  presbyterum." 

t  "  Ideoque  Hieronymus  claris  verbis  inquit  inter  episcopos  et  pres. 
byteros  non  esse  discrimen,  sed  omnes  pastores  et  episcopos  esse.  Et 
allcgat  textuin  Pauli,  Tit.  i.,"  &c. 

t  "  Hie  docet  Hieronymus  distinctos  gradus  episcoporum  et  presby- 
terorum  sive  pastorum  tantum  humana  authoritute  constitutos  esse; 
idquc  res  ipsa  loquitur,  quia  officium  et  mandatum  plane  idem  est. 
Quia  autem  jure  divino  nullum  est  discrimen  inter  episenpum  etpas- 
torem,  nou  est  dubium,  ordinationem  ideo  eorum  ministrorum  a  pas- 
tore  in  ecclesia  sua  factum,  jure  .divino  ratam  et  probatam  esse." 


352 


LETTERS  ON 


of  the  exclusive  claims  and  divine  institution  of  dio- 
cesan Episcopacy.  And  I  apprehend  that  it  is  plain 
from  the  following  quotation  from  the  Synopsis  of 
Willetj  that  a  similar  view  of  the  meaning  of  Jerome 
was  adopted  by  himself,  and  by  Jewel  and  Whitgift. 
"  Amongst  the  rest,"  says  he,  "  S.  Hierome  thus  wri- 
teth:  Apostolum  perspicue  docere,  &c.  The  Apostle 
teacheth  evidently  that  bishops  and  py'iests  were  the 
same:  yet  he  holdeth  this  distinction  to  be  necessary 
for  the  government  of  the  Church,  Quod  unus  postea 
electus,  est,  &c.  That  one  afterwards  was  chosen  to 
be  set  over  the  rest,  it  was  done  to  bee  a  remedie 
against  schisme.  To  this  opinion  of  S.  Jerome  sub- 
scribed! Bishop  Jewel  in  the  place  before  quoted,* 

*  The  testimony  of  Willet,  whose  book,  as  I  showed,  was  approved 
by  the  bishops,  establishes  the  accuracy  of  the  statement  which  was 
given  in  a  former  letter  of  the  sentiments  of  Jewel  respecting-  the 
origin  of  Episcopacy,  which  he  regarded,  (as  was  proved)  only  as  a 
human  institution,  and  furnishes  an  answer  to  what  is  urged  to  the 
contrary  by  Mr.  Boyd,  (Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  51.) — "  I 
reply,"  says  the  latter  writer,  "  in  the Jirst  place,  by  saying,  that  these" 
(they  had  been  quoted  by  the  authors  of  the  Plea  for  Presbytery,  and 
are  the  same  nearly  as  I  have  referred  to)  "  are  not  Jewel's  words. 
They  are  part  of  a  quolation  taken  from  St.  Jerome,  and  given  in  the 
quotation  imputed  to  Jewel,  as  any  person  who  has  read  even  the  first 
clause  of  that  father's  epistle  to  Evangelus  (Evagrius!)  could  not  have 
failed  of  knowing."  Willet  was  aware  of  this  as  well  as  Mr.  Boyd; 
and  yet  he  affirms,  from  the  manner  in  which  Jewel  not  only  quotes, 
but  applies  the  words  of  Jerome,  that  he  was  of  the  same  opinion  with 
that  father.  And  certainly  the  writer  who  quotes  with  approbation 
the  words  of  another  must  be  considered  as  adopting  them.  I  pre- 
sume Mr.  Boyd  does  this,  when  he  quotes  in  this  way  the  authors  to 
whom  he  appeals  in  diiferent  parts  of  his  work.  "  In  the  second 
place,  all  that  Jewel  says  is,  that  it  is  no  heresy  to  say,  that  by  the 
Scriptures  of  God,  bishops  and  priests  are  all  one.  And  does  this 
prove  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  an  advocate  for  Presbytery?"  No,  cer- 
tainly ;  for  Jewel,  like  Jerome,  thought  that  Episcopacy  might  be 
adopted  on  the  principle  of  expediency,  though  not  as  a  divine  insti- 
tution. And  he  admits,  like  Jerome,  not  as  Mr.  Boyd  would  insinu- 
ate, that  a  bishop  and  a  Presbyter  are  represented  in  Scripture  as  all 
one,  because  they  belong  to  one  order, — the  one  occupying  its  higher 
grade,  and  the  other  its  lower, — but  as  one  in  degree  as  well  as  order, 
or,  as  he  expresses  it  in  another  passage,  which  he  quotes  with  appro- 
bation from  Jerome,  one  thing ;  and  this  is  farther  confirmed  by  his 
representing  them  as  at  first  ruling  the  Church  with  equal  power. 
" Againe,"  he  observes,  (Defense  of  the  Apologie,  p.  100,)  "Jerome 
saith,  therefore  a  priest  and  a  bishop  are  one  thing ;  and  before  that 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


353 


and  another  most  reverend  prelate  of  onr  Church, 
(Whitgift,)  in  these  words:  "I  know  these  names  be 
confounded  in  the  Scriptures,  but  I  speak  according 

by  the  inflaming  of  the  divell  parts  were  taken  in  religion,  and  these 
words  were  uttered  among  the  people,  I  hold  of  Paul,  &c.,  the 
Churches  were  governed  of  the  common  advice  of  the  priests."  Be- 
sides, when  Harding,  as  Jewel  informs  us,  p.  196,  affirmed,  that  "they 
which  denied  the  distinction  of  a  bishop  and  a  priest  were  condemned 
of  heresie,"  and  appealed  in  proof  of  it  to  the  condemnation  of  the 
sentiments  of  Arius  by  Epiphanins,  lib.  iii.  cap.  75,  he  charged  them 
with  denying  any  distinction  between  them  to  the  same  extent  to 
which  it  was  denied  by  Arius.  Now,  we  know  that  Arius  .denied 
any  distinction  between  them,  not  only  as  to  order,  but  as  to  degree. 
And  Jewel  observes,  on  the  margin,  with  regard  to  Harding's  charge, 
that  "this  was  an  untruth,  for  hereby  both  S.  Paul  and  S.  Hierome, 
and  other  good  men,  are  condemned  of  heresie ;"  plainly  showing  that 
he  considered  them  as  teaching  that,  by  divine  appointment,  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  not  only  of  one  order,  but  of  the  same  degree.  As 
to  the  two  quotations  from  the  Defense,  and  the  passage  produced  by 
Mr.  Boyd  from  the  Apology,  where  Jewel  says,  "  We  believe  that  in 
the  Church  there  are  various  orders  of  ministers,  some  deacons,  others 
priests,  others  bishops,  to  whom  the  instruction  of  the  people,  and  the 
care  and  administration  of  religion,  is  intrusted,"  it  contains  no  con- 
tradiction to  the  statement,  that,  like  Jerome,  he  considered  bishops 
and  presbyters  the  same  as  to  order  and  degree  by  divine  right,  tor 
he  thought  also,  like  him,  that  it  was  agreeable  to  Scripture  to  adopt 
a  superior  order  to  presbyters  on  the  principle  of  expediency.  And  as 
he  acknowledges,  in  another  part  of  the  Apology,  that  they  had  re- 
tained some  rites  which  were  not  instituted  by  God,  they  might  be 
disposed  to  retain  diocesan  bishops  though  not  appointed  by  him. 
And  as  to  the  other  passage  of  the  Apology  referred  to  by  Mr.  Boyd, 
where  Jewel  says,  "We  have  approached,  as  much  as  possibly  we 
could,  the  Church  of  the  Apostles,  and  ancient  Catholic  bishops  and 
fathers,"  it  is  evident  from  the  following  sentence,  which  .Mr.  Boyd 
ought  to  have  quoted,  but  which  he  has  taken  care  to  suppress,  that 
the  bishop  is  speaking  only  of  their  approaching  that  Church  in  re- 
gard to  doctrine  and  worship,  and  never  alludes  to  the  orders  among 
the  clergy.  So  much  for  Mr.  Boyd's  allegation  of  frauds  practised 
against  Bishop  Jewel. 

I  may  add,  that  the  celebrated  Dr.  Reynolds,  of  whom  Bishop  Hall 
said,  that  "  his  memory  and  reading  were  near  a  miracle,"  and  Crack- 
enthorp,  that  "to  name  hirn  was  to  commend  virtue  itself,"  confirms 
this  view  of  the  sentiments  of  Jewel,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Boyd;  for, 
says  he,  in  his  letter  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  "  which  untruth,  (that 
Augustine  charged  Arius  with  heresy,  for  asserting  that,  according  to 
Scripture,  bishops  and  presbyters  arc  the  same,)  it  may  appeare  by 
this,  that  our  learned  countryman,  of  good  memory,  Bishop  Jewel, 
(Defense  of  the  Apology,  part  2,  cap.  9,  divis.  1,  p.  198,)  when  Hard- 
ing, to  convince  the  same  opinion  of  heresie,  alleadged  the  same  wit- 
nesses, he  cyting  to  the  contrary  Chrysostome,  Jerome,  &c,  knit  up 
his  answer  with  these  words  :  All  these  and  other  moe  holy  fathers, 

23 


354 


LETTERS  ON 


to  the  manner  and  custome  of  the  Church  ever  since 
the  Apostles'  time;"  Defens.  Answer.  Admonit.  p. 
3S3.*  But  if  such  was  the  view  of  the  meaning  of 
these  passages  which  was  adopted  by  these  eminent 
and  venerable  individuals,  some  of  whom  continued 
to  adhere  to  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  expediency, 
though  not  of  divine  right,  does  it  not  furnish  a  strong 
presumptive  argument,  whether  you  reflect  on  their 
number,  or  learning,  or  piety,  that  it  must  be  the  true 
interpretation;  and  if  this  be  really  the  case,  and  if 
the  testimony  of  Jerome  respecting  the  origin  of  pre- 
lacy, and  the  time  when  it  was  introduced,  be  worthy 
of  credit,  does  it  not  subvert  completely  all  its  claims 
to  the  character,  which  so  many  of  its  injudicious 
friends  are  so  anxious  to  claim  for  it,  of  an  apostolic 
institution? 

As  it  is  still,  however,  possible,  though  not  very 
probable,  that  this  interpretation  may  be  wrong,  and 
as  we  ought  to  judge  for  ourselves,  I  shall  examine 
very  shortly  the  leading  statements  contained  in  these 
quotations,  and  the  principal  objections  which  were 
urged  against  it  formerly  by  some  Popish  controver- 
sialists, when  they  advocated  the  cause  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  and  which  have  been  repeated  of  late 
by  some  of  its  defenders  among  Protestant  Episco- 
palians. 

Now,  upon  looking  into  these  passages,  I  appre- 
hend, that  it  will  appear  to  an  impartial  reader,  who 
has  no  theory  to  establish,  that  the  following  points, 
bearing  very  strongly  on  the  question  about  Episco- 
pacy, are  asserted  by  Jerome,  who,  according  to  Bing- 
ham, "  may  be  allowed,"  on  many  subjects,  "to  speak 
the  sense  of  the  ancients." 

together  with  the  Apostle  S.  Paul,  for  thus  saying,  by  Harding^s 
advice  must  be  held  for  heretikes."  And  Hooker,  in  his  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Polity,  book  vii.  p.  395,  when  speaking  of  those  who  believed  that 
"  the  A/iostles  did  neither  by  word  or  deed  appoint  it,"  (diocesan  Epis- 
copacy,) mentions  among  them,  on  the  margin,  Jewel,  in  his  Defens. 
Apol.  part  2,  cap.  9  ;  and  Dr.  Fulk,  in  his  Answer  to  the  Rhemish 
version  of  the  Testament,  Tit.  i.  5.  Surely  Dr.  Reynolds  and  Hooker 
will  satisfy  Mr.  Boyd  and  his  friends  on  this  point. 
*  Page  273. 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


355 


1st,  That  bishops  do  not  belong  to  a  different  order 
from  presbyters  by  divine  right,  or  even  to  a  higher 
grade  in  the  same  order;  "because  the  Apostle, when 
pointing  out  what  kind  of  presbyter  ought  to  be  or- 
dained, says,  that  a  bishop  ought  to  be  blameless, 
plainly  showing  that  a  presbyter  is  the  same  with  a 
bishop,  (idem  est  ergo  presbyter  qui  et  episcopus:") 
that  "  it  was  not  merely  his  private  opinion,  but  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter 
are  one,  (episcopum  et  presbyterum  unumesse  ;)  that 
the  same  persons  who  are  called  presbyters  are  after- 
wards denominated  bishops,,  (presbyteros  vocans 
postea  eosdem  episcopos  dixerit;)  and  that  Paul,  when 
writing  about  the  ordination  of  bishops  and  deacons, 
is  entirely  silent  about  presbyters,  because  they  are 
comprehended  under  bishops,  (de  presbyteris  omnino 
reticetur,  quia  in  episcopo  et  presbyter  continetur.") 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  his  opinion  bishops  had 
in  no  respect  any  superiority  to  presbyters  by  divine 
right,  and  that  not  the  smallest  sanction  of  that  supe- 
riority is  to  be  met  with  in  Scripture. 

Idly,  That  while  presbyters  and  bishops  continued 
the  same,  as  the  Lord  had  appointed,  no  one  possessed 
any  pre-eminence  as  to  power  beyond  another,  and 
u  the  churches  were  governed  by  a  common  council 
of  presbyters."  (Communi  concilio  presbyterorum 
ecclesiae  gubernabantur.) 

3d/y,  That  when  bishops  were  placed  above  pres- 
byters, it  was  to  prevent  schisms,  and  they  were  raised 
to  their  superiority  only  by  the  custom  of  the  Church, 
and  not  by  any  divine  direction,  (ut  dissensionum 
plantaria  evellerentur  ad  unum  omnem  solicitudinem 
esse  delatam,  episcopi  noverinl  se  magis  consuetudine 
quam  dispositionis  dominicae  verilate  presbyteris 
esse  ma j ores.) 

Athly,  That  this  change  took  place  when  dissen- 
sions arose  among  different  people  or  states  where 
Christian  Churches  had  been  planted,  and  "one  said, 
I  am  of  Paul,  another,  I  of  Apollos,  another,  I  of  Ce- 
phas, and  another,  I  of  Christ;"  to  remedy  which, 


356 


LETTERS  ON 


"  it  was  resolved  or  determined  over  the  whole  world, 
that  one  should  be  set  over  the  other  presbyters,  to 
whom  the  whole  care  of  every  separate  church  should 
be  committed.  (In  toto  orbe  decretum  est,  ut  unus 
de  presbyteris  electus  superponeretur  caeteris,  ad  quern 
omnis  ecclesiae  cura  pertineret,  et  schismatum  semina 
tollerentur.") 

5thly,  He  does  not  affirm,  as  has  often  been  alleged 
by  many  Episcopalians,  both  Protestant  and  Popish, 
that  this  elevation  of  one  of  the  presbyters  above  the 
rest  of  his  brethren  took  place  at  once  throughout 
the  early  Church,  when  the  schism  referred  to  by  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
arose  in  that  Church.  Had  this  been  the  case,  an  ex- 
traordinary spectacle  would  unquestionably  have  been 
exhibited  to  future  ages,  namely,  the  inspired  and 
accredited  ministers  of  Christ,  the  twelve  Apostles, 
along  with  Paul,  allowing  the  Church  at  its  own 
pleasure  to  alter  that  constitution  which  they  had  pre- 
pared for  it  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  and  to 
provide  a  remedy  against  the  progress  of  schism  which 
he  had  not  suggested;  and  their  conduct  would  have 
excited  still  greater  surprise,  as  they  have  never  made 
the  most  distant  allusion  to  it,  or  expressed  the  small- 
est approbation  of  it  in  any  of  their  Epistles.  Besides, 
had  it  been  introduced  at  that  time  and  received  their 
sanction,  Jerome  would  never  have  represented  it  as 
originating  merely  in  custom,  (consuetudine  eccle- 
siae,) and  not  in  divine  appointment,  (dispositio  do- 
mimca) ;  for  the  approbation  of  the  Apostles,  acting 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  would  certainly 
have  invested  it  with  that  high  character.  He  makes 
no  such  statement,  however,  in  either  of  these  pas- 
sages, but  asserts  distinctly,  that  as  bishops  and  pres- 
byters were  originally  the  same,  both  as  to  order  and 
power,  by  the  appointment  of  the  Saviour,  so  they  con- 
tinued the  same  long  after  the  schism  which  took  place 
at  Corinth,  and  even  during  the  ivhole  of  the  time 
referred  to  in  the  latest  of  the  apostolic  writings ; 
quoting  in  proof  of  this  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


357 


the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  Second  and  Third 
Epistles  of  John.*  And  so  far  from  declaring  that 
this  elevation  of  one  of  the  conncil  of  presbyters 
took  place  at  once  throughout  the  whole  Christian 

*  When  Sanders,  the  Papist,  asserted  that  bishops  had  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  Church,  after  the  schism  at  Corinth,  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Apostles,  though  not  under  their  direction,  and  appealed 
in  proof  of  it  to  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  Whitaker  replied  in  the  fol- 
lowing- terms:  "Respondeo  Sanderum  plane  aut  non  intelligere,  aut 
non  attendere  quid  Hieronymus  velit.  Etiamsi  enim  Apostolis  vivis 
aliqui  dixerunt,  ego  Pauli  sum,  ego  Cephae,  ego  Apollo,  et  Hieron. 
scribit,  antiquum  diceretur  ego  sum  Pauli,  &.C;,  tamen  Hieronymus 
non  sensit  ab  Apostolis  eum  ordinem  mutatum  esse,  sed  postea  eccle- 
siae  judicio.  Id  Hieronymus  significat  cum  ait,  mox,  in  toto  orbe, 
decrctum  est  ut  unus  ex  presbyteris  electus  superponeretur  caeteris. 
Num.  hoc  ab  Apostolis  factum  decretum  est?  Hieronymus  ipse  re- 
spondeat. Sicut  presbyteri  (inquit)  sciunt,  se  ex  ecclesiae  covsuetu- 
dine  episcopo  sibi  praeposito  esse  subjectos.  Ex  ecclesiae  consuetu- 
dine  Hieronymus  ait,  non  Apostolorum  decreto;  turn  subnectit,  ita 
episcopi  noverint  se  presbyteris  majores  consuetudine  magis  quam 
dominicac  dispositionis  vcritate.  At  si  ilium  ordinem  Apostoli  muta- 
vissent,  et  presbyteris  episcopos  praefecissent,  et  communi  prcsby- 
terorum  consilio  ecclesias  posthac  rcgi  vetuissent,  ea  sane  dominica 
dispositio  fuisset,  utpote  a  Christi  Apostolis  profecta,  nisi  forte  quae 
Apostoli  decreverant  ea  consuetudini  non  dispositioni  dominicae  as- 
cribenda  sint.  Sed  vivis  Apostolis  nihil  est  in  illo  ordine  mutatum. 
Nam  ilia  ad  Corinthios  scripta  cpistola  est,  quum  Paulus  in  Macedo- 
niam  agcret;  at  post  hoc  tempus  Titum  rcliquit  in  Creta,  ut  presby- 
teros  oppidatim  constitueret;  Tit.  i.  5.  Si  mutandum  ordinem  Apos- 
tolus putasset,  non  praecepisset  constitui  in  singulis  oppidis  presby- 
teros,  ncc  Hieronymus  ex  Paulo ;  Philip,  i.  1 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  2 ;  Tit.  i.  5, 
7;  ex  Petro,  1  Pet.  v.  1 ;  ex  Actis,  Act.  xx.  17,  28  ;  ex  Joanne,  2  Joh. 
i.  et  3  Joh.  i.,  testimonia  attulisset,  quibus  presbyterum  cundem  esse 
cum  episcopo  demonstraret.  Paulus  Epistolas  suas  ad  Philippenses, 
ad  Timotheum,  ad  Titum,  et  Petrus  suam,  et  Joannes  suas  scripsc- 
runt  postquam  illud  Corinthi  natum  schisma  est;  et  Lucas  etiain 
prcsbyteros  Ephesinos  post  illud  schisma  a  Paulo  Miletum  acccrsitos 
esse  sbribit.  Cum  Hieronymus  his  potissimum  locis  fretus,  (Epist.  ad 
Evagr.)  contendat  presbyterum  parent  esse  episcopo  per  omnia,  non 
potuit  esse  tarn  immemor  sui  ut  putarct  ab  apostolis  earn  ralioricm 
rnutatam  esse.  Sic  alibi  cum  Scripturae  testimonia  adduxisset  quibus 
episcopum  et  presbyterum  non  differrc  evineeret,  subjicit  postea 
unum  electum,  qui  caeteris  praeponcrctur.  Si  postea  electus  unus  est 
qui  presbyteris  superior  essct,  non  ergo  Apostoli,  sed  ecclcsiastica 
quaedam  consueludo  aut  constitutio  differ entiam  ilium  introduxit" 
Controv.  4,  Quaest.  1,  cap.  3,  sect.  29.  Such  is  the  answer  which 
was  given  to  this  Papist  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
by  this  learned  professor  of  divinity,  when  he  brought  forward  the 
very  same  objections  to  our  view  of  the  sentiments  of  Jerome  which 
are  advanced  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  in  the  present, 
day. 


358 


LETTERS  OS 


Church,  in  consequence  of  the  decree  of  some  general 
council,  as  Bishop  Russel  and  Mr.  Boyd  insinuate 
that  we  represent  Jerome  as  asserting,  "  though  there 
is  not  in  the  writings  of  any  of  the  fathers,  nor  of  any 
other  author,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  the  slightest  re- 
ference to  any  such  canon  or  institute,"*  we  consider 
him  as  stating  directly  the  contrary.  He  describes 
the  progress  of  the  schisms  as  gradual,  for  he  says 
that  they  extended  "from  people  to  people,"  or 
through  different  countries,  ("in  populis,")  when 
every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he  had  baptized 
belonged  to  himself,  and  not  to  Christ.  And  he  men- 
tions expressly  that  the  adoption  of  the  remedy  was 
equally  gradual,  or,  according  to  his  own  words, 
"by  little  and  little,''  (paulatim);  and  that  it  was 
not  in  consequence  of  a  decree  of  any  general  council, 
hut  of  a  resolution  or  determination  of  each  of  the 
Churches  throughout  the  whole  world,  (toto  orbe  de- 
cretum,)  as  the  schisms  spread,  to  try  the  expedient 
for  checking  them  which  had  been  employed  by 
others.  He  does  not  specify  the  particular  time  at 
which  it  was  first  tried,  but  it  is  plain  that  it  must 
have  been  after  the  apostolic  age.  He  tell  us,  indeed, 
that  it  was  "  when  every  one  said  I  am  of  Paul,  or  I 
am  of  Apollos,  or  I  of  Cephas;"  but  he  does  not  state 
that  it  was  when  this  was  said  at  Corinth,  but  when 
it  was  said  among  different  people  or  in  different 
countries:  and  he  uses  the  very  same  expressions  to 
describe  the  conduct  of  schismatics  in  the  ages  which 
followed,  and  even  in  his  own  day;  for,  says  he,  "we 
do  not  all  speak  the  same  thing,  one  saying  I  am  of 
Paul,  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  and  another,  I  of 
Cephas,  and  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,"  &c.t 
And  as  it  will  not  follow  from  his  applying  the  ex- 
pressions which  were  used  by  the  first  schismatics  at 
Corinth  to  the  schismatics  who  lived  after  the  apos- 
tolic age,  that  he  designed  to  tell  us,  in  opposition  to 

*  Sermon,  p.  35. 

t  "Quando  non  id  ipsum  idem  loquimur,  et  alius  dicit  ego  Pauli, 
ego  Apollo,  ego  Cepbae,  dividimus  Spiritus  unitatem,  et  earn  in  partes 
et  membra  discerpimus;"  in  Ephes.  lib.  2.  cap.  4. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


359 


the  whole  of  his  previous  reasoning,  that  it  was  at  the 
first  of  these  periods,  and  not  at  the  last,  that  this 
change  was  made,  so  it  cannot  be  inferred,  as  has 
been  done  by  Episcopalians  from  his  saying  to  Eva- 
grius,  that  "what  Aaron, and  his  sons, and  the  Levites 
were  in  the  Temple,  the  bishops,  and  presbyters,  and 
deacons  might  claim  to  be  in  the  Church,"*  he  in- 
tended to  represent  bishops  as  superior  to  presbyters 
by  divine  appointment.  He  had  been  endeavouring 
previously,  through  the  whole  Epistle,  to  show,  that 
as  presbyters  were  equal  to  bishops,  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  Christ,  the  conduct  of  deacons,  who  exalted 
themselves  above  the  former,  was  presumptuous  and. 
sinful.  And  as  we  cannot  believe  that  he  icon  Id  sub- 
vert in  the  end  what  he  had  been  labouring  to  es- 
tablish in  the  rest  of  the  Epistle,  he  must  have  design- 
ed merely  to  affirm,  that  he  might  check  the  ambition 
of  the  insolent  deacon,  that  the  same  superiority  which 
was  possessed  by  Aaron  and  his  sons  over  the  Levites 
under  the  Old  Dispensation,  ought  to  be  possessed  by 
presbyters  and  bishops,  whom  he  had  proved  to  be 
not  only  equal,  but  the  very  same,  under  the  New 
Dispensation.  And  he  denominates  the  latter  apos- 
tolic traditions,  from  the  numerous  passages  which  he 
had  brought  in  proof  of  the  equality  and  identity  of 
presbyters  and  bishops,  and  their  superiority  to  dea- 
cons, from  the  writings  of  the  Apostles. 

He  tells  us,  in  short,  as  was  already  noticed,  that 
even  in  the  middle,  or  rather  towards  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  the  only  thing  in  which  a  bishop  was 
superior  to  a  presbyter,  was  the  power  of  ordination. 
But  if  this  was  really  the  case,  and  if  bishops  after- 
wards acquired  the  two  additional  powers  of  jurisdic- 
tion and  confirmation,  as  they  now  possess  them,  not 
by  divine  right,  but  by  assuming  them  to  themselves, 
and  the  clergy  consenting  from  whatever  motives,  it 
confirms  the  truth  of  his  previous  statement  with  re- 
gard to  ordination,  which  he  says  they  did  not  origi- 

*  "Et  ut  sciamus  traditiones  Apostolicas  sumptas  de  Veteri  Testa, 
menlo,  quod  Aaron  et  filii  ejus  atque  Lcvitae  in  Templo  fuerunt,  hoc 
sibi  episcopi,  et  presbyteri,  et  diaconi  vindicent  in  Ecclesia." 


360 


LETTERS  ON 


nally  possess,  and  to  which  they  had  no  more  a  title 
by  divine  right  than  to  these  other  powers,  but  re- 
ceived it  only  by  the  deed  of  the  Church,  and  not  by 
the  appointment  of  the  Lord.  It  is  likely  that  they 
attained  the  two  latter  powers  by  little  and  little,  so 
as  not  to  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  clergy;  and  the 
extent  to  which  they  exercised  their  power  in  regard 
to  ordination,  and  to  presiding  among  the  presbyters, 
might  be  so  very  small  as  not  to  awaken  any  such 
feelings  in  the  ministers  of  the  Church,  and  it  might 
be  only  by  degrees  that  it  reached  the  height  at  which 
it  arrived  afterwards  in  the  days  of  Jerome.  If  such, 
however,  was  the  amount  of  their  power  when  it  was 
first  conferred  on  them,  it  furnishes  an  answer  to  the 
extravagant  and  declamatory  observations  of  Mr. 
Boyd,  who  expresses  his  astonishment,  that  "  while 
this  transaction  (the  introduction  of  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy) was  going  on,  whether  originating  in  one  am- 
bitious individual,  or  the  example  of  some  wonder- 
fully influential  Church, — of  which  individual  or  of 
which  Church  there  is  no  mention  in  history, — no 
note  of  alarm  is  sounded,  no  summons  to  resistance 
issued,  no  remonstrance  heard  from  east  to  west, 
calling  upon  Christians  to  protect  the  constitution  of 
the  Christian  Zion  from  impending  injury  and  de- 
struction."* When  the  bishops  assumed  the  two 
last  of  these  powers,  and  when  archbishops,  partriarchs 
and  primates  arose  in  the  Church,  he  will  certainly 
allow  that  a  very  great  change  took  place  in  its  con- 
stitution, whether  originating  in  a  few  ambitious  in- 
dividuals, or  in  any  other  cause,  "of  which  individuals, 
and  of  which  cause,  there  is  no  mention  in  history ; 
nor  does  it  appear  that  any  note  of  alarm  was  sounded, 
any  summons  to  resistance  issued,  or  any  remonstrance 
neard  from  east  to  west,  calling  upon  Christians  to 
withstand  these  changes."  But  if  the  latter  innovations 
passed  unopposed,  and  were  quietly  acquiesced  in, 
and  generally  adopted,  though  nothing  is  recorded  of 
the  individuals  who  introduced  them,  or  of  the  way 
in  which  they  were  effected,  I  would  like  to  be  in- 

*  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  p.  156,  157. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


361 


formed  whether  the  same  thing  might  not  happen, 
when,  according  to  Jerome,  the  power  of  ordination 
and  a  perpetual  presidency  in  the  councils  of  the  pres- 
byters were  bestowed  upon  bishops  by  the  deed  of 
the  Church. 

I  have  only  further  to  remark  on  the  statement  of 
Jerome,  that  in  the  only  instance  which  he  mentions 
of  the  appointment  of  bishops,  after  they  were  first  in- 
troduced, that  of  the  bishops  of  Alexandria, 'he  repre- 
sents them  as  made  by  presbyters,  just  as  the  Roman 
army  by  its  own  deed  made  their  emperor,  and  the 
deacons  made  their  archdeacon.  He  does  not  say 
whether  they  ordained  them,  though  this  is  asserted 
afterwards  by  Eutychius.  And  it  is  evident  that  if 
they  were  ordained,  they  alone  must  have  performed 
it ;  for  before  diocesan  bishops  were  adopted  by  the 
Church,  who  did  not  receive  their  office  by  any  divine 
appointment,  but  by  a  mere  human  arrangement, 
there  could  be  none  but  presbyters  to  consecrate  those 
who  were  raised  to  the  episcopate,  not  only  in  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  but  in  all  the  Churches.  But 
if,  according  to  Jerome,  it  was  presbyters  alone  who 
began  the  succession,  and  ordained  the  first  diocesan 
bishops  in  all  the  Churches,  from  whom  the  whole  of 
the  bishops  of  the  present  day,  and  the  whole  of  their 
clergy,  have  derived  their  orders,  the  succession  has 
been  vitiated  at  its  very  commencement,  and  cannot  be 
rectified;  and  if  Presbyterian  orders  have  no  validity, 
there  cannot,  upon  your  principles,  be  a  Church,  or  a 
minister,  or  a  single  individual  who  has  any  revealed 
and  covenanted  title  to  salvation  on  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

The  sum,  then,  of  Jerome's  observations  seems  to 
be  this :  He  affirms  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  while  the 
original  constitution  of  the  Church  remained,  and  pres- 
byters were  equal  to  bishops,  the  Church  was  govern- 
ed by  a  common  council  of  Presbyters;  that  when  that 
constitution  was  altered  by  the  introduction  of  dio- 
cesan bishops,  it  was  not  by  divine  appointment,  but 
by  a  mere  human  arrangement ;  that  when  one  pres- 
byter was  elevated  above  his  brethren,  and  promoted 


3G2 


LETTERS  ON  PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


to  the  episcopate,  it  was  an  expedient  to  repress 
schism;  that  it  was  introduced  by  little  and  little,  as 
dissensions  spread  among  the  Churches  in  different 
countries,  and  not  all  at  once,*  and  was  adopted  ulti- 
mately by  every  Church,  in  consequence  entirely  of 
its  own  resolution,  (decretum;)  that  even  towards  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century,  bishops  were  distinguished 
from  presbyters  only  by  the  power  of  ordaining  minis- 
ters, and  that  when  bishops  were  first  made  they  were 
not  only  chosen,  but  made  by  presbyters.  Now,  if 
these  be  really  facts,  and  not  merely  opinions,  and 
we  must  hold  them  to  be  so,  unless  Episcopalians  can 
show  that  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  "the  most  esteem- 
ed of  the  fathers,"  was  contradicted  by  his  contempo- 
raries, and  by  those  who  succeeded  him,  (and  this  has 
never  yet  been  attempted,)  they  prove  incontestably 
that  Presbyterianism  is  the  original  constitution  of 
the  Church,  as  it  was  settled  by  the  Apostles,  and 
account  for  the  introduction  of  diocesan  Episcopacy; 
that  the  latter  is  an  innovation,  and  a  mere  human 
institution;  and  that  Churches  which  are  at  present 
governed  by  presbyters  are  far  more  likely  to  be  free 
from  schisms  than  other  Churches,  unless  the  inven- 
tions of  men  are  superior  to  the  polity  which  has  been 
approved  by  God,  because  they  resemble  more  nearly 
the  model  which  he  has  presented  to  them  in  the 
Sacred  Scriptures. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 

*  It  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  Presbyterians  to  represent 
Jerome  as  saying  that  bishops  were  adopted  at  once  through  the 
whole  world.  Important  changes,  either  in  the  civil  constitutions  of 
rations,  or  in  the  creation  of  a  new  order  of  ministers  in  Churches, 
and  changes,  too,  exactly  resembling  each  other,  were  never  known 
to  take  place  to  that  extent  simultaneously,  and  could  not  by  any 
possibility  so  take  place;  nor  does  Jerome  say  that  it  happened  in 
the  instance  of  which  he  speaks,  but  quite  the  contrary.  Besides, 
he  describes  the  pre-eminence  conferred  at  first  on  one  of  the  pres- 
byters above  his  brethren  as  so  very  small  that  it  would  awaken  no 
jealousy,  and  says  that  it  was  increased  gradually. 


363 


LETTER  XXII. 

While  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  settled  by  the  Apostles,  is  acknow- 
ledged by  Jerome  to  have  been  Presbyterian,  he  seems  to  have  approved 
of  a  modified  Episcopacy  as  a  human  arrangement  for  the  pre\ention  of 
schism. — This  remedy  acknowledged  by  Gratius  to  have  increased,  in 
place  of  repressing  the  evil. — Invalidity  of  the  objection  to  Presbyterian 
principles,  that  they  were  held  by  Arius,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
inasmuch,  as  though  he  might  err  on  the  latter  point,  it  would  not  follow 
that  he  erred  on  every  other;  for  he  agreed  in  many  things  with  Episco- 
palians,and  especially  with  those  of  them  who  condemned  prayers  for  the 
dead. — Hilary.  Augustine  and  Chrysostom  admit  the  identity  of  presbyters 
and  bishops. — Clemens  Romanus  mentions  only  two  orders  of  ministers, 
and  never  refers  to  diocesan  bishops. — No  reference  to  them  in  the  Epistle 
of  Polycarp. — The  short  Epistles  of  Ignatius  proved  to  be  corrupted,  so 
that  no  dependence  can  be  placed  on  their  statements  respecting  the  or- 
ders in  the  ministry;  and  even  admitting  them  to  be  genuine,  no  such 
powers  are  ascribed  in  them  to  bishops  as  are  possessed  by  modern  dio- 
cesan bishops. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  quotations  Avhich  have  been 
produced  from  the  writings  of  Jerome  prove  incon- 
testably,  that  in  the  opinion  of  that  distinguished 
early  father  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  it  was 
settled  by  the  Apostles,  was  strictly  Presbyterian ; 
and  they  contain  also  his  testimony  to  the  important 
fact,  (and  from  his  nearness  to  the  period  when  the 
change  took  place,  and  the  absence  of  every  thing 
like  an  opposite  testimony,  it  is  entitled  unquestion- 
ably to  the  utmost  credit,)  that  when  Episcopacy  was 
introduced,  it  was  a  mere  human  institution  for  pre- 
venting schism.  But  it  is  only  fair  to  remark,  that 
he  approved  of  that  arrangement ;  for  he  says  in  an- 
other part  of  his  writings,  "The  safety  of  the  Church 
depends  on  the  dignity  of  the  highest  priest,  on  whom, 
if  a  certain  extraordinary  and  superior  authority  above 
all  be  not  conferred,  there  will  be  as  many  dissensions 
as  there  are  priests."*  He  appears  to  me  to  have 
erred  in  that  opinion  ;  for  human  institutions  are  cer- 
tainly less  fitted  to  prevent  schisms,  and  promote  at 
once  purity  of  doctrine,  and  peace  and  harmony, 

*  "  Ecdcsiae  salus  in  summi  sacerdotis  dignitate  pendet,  cui  si 
non  exsors  quaedam,  et  ah  omnibus  eminens  datur  potcstas,  tot  in 
Ecclesiis  efficientur  schismata,  quot  sacerdotes."    Dial,  ad  Lucifer. 


364 


LETTERS  ON 


than  the  form  of  government  which  the  Redeemer 
himself  has  appointed  for  his  Church.  And  it  is 
far  more  likely  that  a  number  of  faithful  Presbyterian 
ministers,  residing  near  each  other  among  their  several 
parishes,  will  watch  over  one  another,  and  repress  the 
first  beginnings  of  evil,  meeting  as  they  do  once  a 
month,  or  once  every  two  months,  in  their  Presby- 
teries, and  once  every  six  months  in  their  Synods,  to 
which  complaints  may  be  carried  by  any  single  min- 
ister, if  the  rest  fail  to  perform  their  duty,  and  once 
a  year  in  their  General  Assembly,  to  whom  even  the 
Synod  is  responsible  ;  it  is  far  more  likely,  I  say,  that 
they  will  repress  the  first  beginnings  of  evil,  than  a 
single  individual  denominated  a  bishop,  who,  though 
equally  faithful,  has  to  superintend  perhaps  four  or 
five  hundred,  or  perhaps  a  thousand  ministers  and 
congregations,  and  who  is  responsible  to  no  Synod  or 
General  Assembly.  And  accordingly,  as  was  ob- 
served by  Orthuinus  Gratius,  the  very  remedy  soon 
increased  the  evil;  for,  "as  Origen  acquaints  us,  the 
Christians,"  even  then,  "  were  divided  into  so  many 
factions,  that  they  had  no  name  common  to  them  but 
that  of  Christian,  and  they  agreed  in  nothing  else  but 
that  name;  and  as  Socrates  informs  us,  they  were 
derided  publicly  in  the  theatres  by  the  people  for  their 
dissensions  and  sects;  and  when,  as  Constantine  the 
Great  said,  there  were  so  many  contentions  and  con- 
troversies in  the  Church,  that  this  very  single  cala- 
mity seemed  to  exceed  the  miseries  of  the  former 
times  ( of  persecution) ;  when  Theophilus,  Epipha- 
nius,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Ruffinus,  and  St.  Je- 
rome, all  of  them  Christians,  all  fathers,  and  all 
Catholics,  contested  with  each  other  with  most  vio- 
lent and  implacable  animosity  ;  when,  as  Xazianzen 
saith,  the  members  of  the  same  body  consumed  one 
another.,'>*  But  still,  though  Jerome  erred  in  that 
opinion,  for  these  were  the  schisms  which  prevailed 
in  the  Church  after  the  introduction  of  Episcopacy, 
yet  it  was  undeniably  his  opinion,  and  that  of  the 
fathers  of  his  day,  who  agreed  with  him  in  thinking 

*  Bishop  Jewel,  Apology  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  36. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


365 


that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  originally  equal,  and 
who  corroborated  also  his  testimony,  that  the  Church 
was  then  governed  by  a  council  of  presbyters.  "And 
therefore,"  says  Stillingfleet,  "some  have  well  ob- 
served the  difference  between  the  opinions  of  Jerome 
and  Alius.  For,  as  to  the  matter  itself,  I  believe, 
upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's  judgment  will 
prove  true,  that  Jerome,  Austin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius, 
Primasius,Chrysostom,  Theodorct,  Theophylact,  were 
all  of  Arius'  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name 
and  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive 
Church  ;  but  here  lay  the  difference.  Arius  from 
hence  proceeded  to  separation  from  bishops  and  their 
churches,  because  they  were  bishops.  And  Blondel 
well  observes,  that  the  main  ground  why  Arius  was 
condemned,  was  for  unnecessary  separation  from  the 
Church  of  Sebastia,  and  those  bishops  too  who  agreed 
with  him  in  other  things,  as  Eustathius  the  bishop  did; 
whereas,  had  his  mere  opinion  about  bishops  been 
the  ground  of  his  being  condemned,  there  can  be  no 
reason  assigned  why  this  heresie,  if  it  were  then 
thought  so,  was  not  mentioned  either  by  Socrates, 
Theodoret,  Sozomen  or  Evagrius,  before  whose  time 
he  lived,  when  yet  they  mention  the  Eustathiani,  who 
were  contemporaries  with  him.  Jerome,  therefore, 
was  not  ranked  with  Arius,  because,  though  he  held 
the  same  opinion  as  to  bishops  and  presbyters,  yet  he 
was  far  from  the  consequence  of  Arius,  that  all  bishops 
were  to  be  separated  from."* 

Having  mentioned  Arias,  who  is  often  thrown  up 
to  us  as  the  first  who  maintained  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  and  who  erred  at  the  same  time  so 
greatly  in  denying  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Saviour, 
I  would  briefly  remark,  that  many  have  entertained 
doubts  of  his  having  really  embraced  that  fearful 
heresy.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me,  however,  to  enter 
on  that  question,  as  the  last  of  these  opinions  surely 
has  no  connection  with  the  first;  and  no  one  will  con- 
tend that  because  he  was  wrong  in  his  sentiments  on 
one  great  point,  he  was  wrong,  for  instance,  in  his 


*  Irenicum,  p.  276,  277. 


366 


LETTERS  ON 


views  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  or  of  the 
difference  between  virtue  and  vice,  and  of  the  doc- 
trines of  a  supreme  overruling  providence,  and  of  a 
future  judgment;  and  that  we  ought  to  reject  the  lat- 
ter as  well  as  the  former  because  he  held  them.  Arius 
entertained  the  very  same  opinion  of  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  with  Jerome  and  others  of  the 
orthodox  fathers,  to  whom  I  shall  refer  immediately, 
and  defended  it  with  much  ability,  even  according  to 
the  statement  of  Epiphanius,  by  the  very  same  argu- 
ments; while  the  very  first  of  the  arguments  of  Epi- 
phanius for  diocesan  bishops  is  a  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  the  rest  are  so  weak,  that  most  Episcopalians 
would  be  ashamed  of  them.  Arius  denied  also,  that 
under  the  New  Testament  Dispensation  Ave  are  bound 
to  observe  the  fasts  of  the  Church  and  other  festivals 
which  are  kept  by  your  own  and  other  Episcopalian 
Churches,  and  reasoned  very  forcibly  in  support  of  his 
position.  Epiphanius  maintained  the  opposite  opinion, 
and  argued  in  proof  of  it  from  Paul's  going  up  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  Pentecost,  and  from  his  con- 
forming to  other  Jewish  rites,  which  if  at  all  conclu- 
sive, would  have  justified  the  Church  in  the  days  of 
that  father,  and  in  succeeding  ages,  in  circumcising  as 
well  as  baptizing  the  children  of  Jewish  converts,  be- 
cause Paul  circumcised  as  well  as  baptized  Timothy, 
and  in  keeping  the  new  moons,  as  well  as  other  Jew- 
ish holy  days.  And  Arius  contended  against  prayers 
for  the  dead;  for,  said  he,  "  if  prayers  can  assist  those 
who  have  departed  this  life,  no  one  in  future  will  need 
to  live  piously,  or  to  do  good,  but  he  will  require  only 
to  attach  to  himself  some  friends  in  whatever  way  he 
chooses,  and  prevail  with  them  by  money  or  entreaties 
to  intercede  with  God  for  him,  that  he  may  sustain 
no  disadvantage  from  his  evil  conduct,  and  may  be 
delivered  from  the  punishment  of  his  aggravated 
offences."  While  Epiphanius  boldly  vindicated  the 
practice  to  an  extent  to  which  I  presume  you  would 
scarcely  follow  him,  declaring,  that  "  they  prayed  not 
only  for  the  righteous,  but  for  sinners,  to  whom  they 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


367 


implored  mercy  from  the  Lord;"*  and  that  "their 
prayers  were  useful  to  them,  though  they  could  not 
extinguish  all  their  faults."t  Now,  as  no  consistent 
Protestant  Episcopalian  would  hesitate  for  a  moment 
to  condemn  the  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead,  be- 
cause Arius  was  one  of  the  first  who  ventured  to 
oppose  it,  so  no  Presbyterian  will  hesitate  in  the  least, 
or  feel  at  all  ashamed  to  adopt  his  views  respecting 
presbyters  and  bishops,  or  fasts  and  festivals  in  honour 
of  the  martyrs,  when  they  are  supported  by  Scripture, 
though  you  should  establish  by  evidence  which  can- 
not be  controverted,  that  he  entertained  unsound  and 
unscriptural  sentiments  respecting  the  divinity  of 
Christ.:): 

*  "Nam  et  justorum  pariter  et  peccatorum  mentionem  facimus; 
pcccatorum  quidem  ut  iis  a  Domino  misericordiam  imploremus." 

t  "Caeterum  quae  pro  mortuis  concipiuntur  preces  iis  utiles  sunt, 
tametsi  rion  omncs  culpas  extinguant." 

t  "  The  argument,"  says  Dr.  Reynolds  in  his  letter  to  Sir  Francis 
Knollys,  "which  he  (Dr.  Bancroft,  who  had  represented  Augustine 
as  charging  Arius  with  heresy,  for  asserting  that,  according  to  Scrip- 
ture, bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same,)  bringeth  to  prove  it  are 
partely  overweake,  partly  untrue;  overweakc,  that,  p.  18,  19  and  6!), 
he  beginneth  with,  out  of  Epiphanius;  untrue,  that  he  adjoynetli  of 
the  general  consent  of  the  Church.  For  though  Epiphanius  do  say 
that  Aerius  his  assertion  is  full  of  folly,  yet  he  disproveth  not  the 
reason  which  Aerius  stood  on  out  of  the  Scriptures;  nay,  he  dealelh 
so  in  seeking  to  disprove  it,  that  Bellarmine  the  Jesuit,  (torn.  i.  cont. 
5,  lib.  1,  cap.  15,)  though  desirous  to  make  the  best  of  Epiphanius, 
whose  opinion  herein  he  mainteyneth  against  the  Protestants,  yet  is 
forced  to  confesse  that  Epiphanius  his  answer  is  not  at  all  the  wisest, 
nor  any  way  can  fit  the  text." 

"  As  for  the  general  consen^of  the  whole  Church,  which  D.  Ban- 
croft saith,  condemned  that  opinion  of  Arius,  for  an  heresy,  and  him- 
self for  an  heretike,  because  he  persisted  in  it,  that  is  a  large  speach: 
but  what  proof  hath  he  that  the  whole  Church  did  so?  It  appeareth, 
he  saith,  in  Epiphanius.  It  doeth  not;  and  the  contrary  appeareth 
by  S.  Jerome,  and  sondry  others,  who  lived,  some  in  the  same  time, 
some  after  Epiphanius,  even  S.  Austin  himself,  though  D.  Bancroft 
cite  him  as  bearing  witness  thereof  likewise.  I  grant  S.  Austin,  in 
his  book  of  Heresies,  ascribeth  this  to  Aerius  for  one,  that  he  sayd, 
Presbyterum  ab  Episcopo  nulla  differentia  debere  discerni :  But  it  is 
one  thing  to  say,  there  ought  to  be  no  difference  betwixt  them,  (which 
Aerius  saying,  condemned  the  Churches'  order,  yea,  made  a  schisme 
therein,  and  so  is  censured  by  S.  Austin,  counting  it  an  heresle  as  in 
Epiphanius  he  took  it  recorded,  himself,  as  he  witnesseth,  (de  Heres. 
ad  quod  vult  Deum  in  praefatione,)  not  knowing  how  far  the  name  of 
heresie  should  be  stretched,)  another  thing  to  say  that  by  the  word  of 


36S 


LETTERS  OX 


I  have  said,  that  a  number  of  the  early  fathers  in 
the  age  of  Jerome  adopted  his  views  of  presbyters 
and  bishops;  and  among  these  I  would  refer  only  to 
the  following: 

"  In  the  bishop,"  says  Hilary,  "  are  all  orders,  be- 
cause he  is  the  first  priest,  that  is,  the  prince  of  priests, 
and  a  prophet  and  evangelist.  The  things  which  were 
written  by  the  Apostle  do  not  correspond  in  all  respects 
with  the  ordination  which  is  now  in  the  Church,  be- 
cause they  were  written  at  the  beginning,  or  first  age 
of  the  Church.  For  he  calls  Timothy,  who  had  been 
ordained  a  presbyter  by  himself,  a  bishop,  because  at 
first  presbyters  were  denominated  bishops,  so  that  one 
dying,  the  next  succeeded  him.  In  fine,  in  Egypt,  the 
presbyters  (according  to  some)  confirm,  (consignant.) 
or  (according  to  others)  ordain.  But,  because  the  fol- 
lowing presbyters  were  found  to  be  unworthy  of  the 
first  place,  the  plan  was  changed,  a  council  ordaining, 

God  there  is  no  difference  betwixt  them,  but  by  the  order  and  custome 
of  the  Church,  which  S.  Austin  (Ep.  19,)  saith  in  effect  himsclfe;  so 
far  was  he  from  witnessing  this  to  be  heresy,  by  the  general  consent 
of  the  whole  Church.  Which  untruth,  how  wrongfully  it  is  fathered 
on  him  and  on  Epiphanius,  (who  yet  are  all  the  witnesses  that  D.  Ban- 
croft  hath  produced  for  the  proofe  thereof,  or  can  for  ought  that  I 
know,)  it  may  appear  by  this,  that  our  learned  countryman  of  good 
memory,  Bishop  Jewel,  (Defense  of  the  Apology,  part  ii.  cap.  9,  divis. 
1.  p.  198,)  when  Harding,  to  convince  the  same  opinion  of  heresie, 
alledged  the  same  witnesses,  he  cyting  to  the  contrary  Chrysostome, 
Jerome,  Austen,  and  Ambrose,  knit  up  his  answer  with  these  words; 
All  these,  and  other  more  holy  fathers,  together  with  the  Apostle  S. 
Paul,  for  thus  saying  by  Harding's  advice,  must  be  held  for  heretikes. 
And  Michael  Medina,  ;de  Sacrif.  Nc^m.  Orig.  et  ConSrm.,  lib.  i.  cap. 
5,)  a  man  of  great  account  in  the  Counsell  of  Trent,  more  ingenuous 
herein  than  many  other  Papists,  affirmcth  not  only  the  former  ancient 
writers  alleadged  by  Bishop  Jewel,  but  also  another  Jerome,  Theo- 
doret,  Primasius,  Sedulius,  and  Theophilact  were  of  the  same  mind, 
touching  this  matter,  with  Aerius.  With  whom  agree  likewise 
CEcumenius,  (in  1  Tim.  iii. ;)  and  Anselmus,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, (in  Epist.  ad  Tit.;)  and  another  Anselmus,  (Collect,  Can.  lib. 
vii.  cap.  87  et  127;)  and  Gregorie,  (Policar,  lib.  ii.  tit.  19  and  39;) 
and  Gratian,  (Can.  legimus,  dist.  39,  cap.  Olimp. ;)  and  after  them 
bow  many,  it  being  once  enrolled  in  the  canon  law  for  sound  and 
Catholike  doctrine,  and  thereupon  publikely  taught  by  learned  men, 
(Author.  Gloss,  in  cap.  dist.  citat,  &.C.;)  all  which  do  bear  witnes 
against  D.  Bancroft,  of  the  point  in  question,  that  it  was  not  condemn- 
ed for  an  heresie,  by  the  general  consent  of  the  whole  Chorch,"  &c. 
See  the  letter  at  large,  which  is  worthy  of  a  careful  perusal. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY.  369 

that  not  priority  of  order,  but  merit,  should  guide  them 
in  the  appointment  of  a  bishop,  which  was  to  be  made 
by  the  judgment  of  many  priests,  lest  one  who  was 
unworthy  of  it  should  rashly  usurp  the  office,  to  the 
offence  of  many."*  And  again,  he  remarks  on  1  Tim. 
iii,  "After  the  bishop,  he  gives  directions  about  the 
ordination  of  the  deacon.  Why  ?  because  there  is 
only  one  ordination  of  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter,  for 
each  of  them  is  a  priest ;  but  the  bishop  is  the  first,  so 
that  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  not  every  presbyter 
a  bishop  ;  for  he  is  a  bishop,  who  is  the  first  among 
the  presbyters.  In  fine,  he  mentions  that  Timothy 
had  been  ordained  a  bishop,  but,  because  he  had  no 
other  before  him,  he  was  a  bishop. "t  But,  if  he  state 
expressly  that  presbyters  were  at  first  denominated 
bishops;  that  the  individual  who  afterwards  received 
that  name  by  way  of  eminence  was  only  the  first  pres- 
byter,and  succeeded  to  his  situation  at  first  by  seniority 
of  order,  and  subsequently  by  the  votes  of  his  fellow 
presbyters;  that  his  ordination,  and  that  of  the  other 
presbyters,  was  the  same,  and  he  received  no  new 
consecration  when  he  was  made  a  bishop,  and  that  in 
Egypt,  when  the  bishop  was  absent,  presbyters  either 
confirmed  or  ordained,  I  leave  it  to  any  impartial  judge 
to  say  whether  he  must  not  have  considered  the  con- 
stitution of  the  primitive  Church  to  have  been  strictly 
Presbyterian. 

In  like  manner,  the  author  of  the  Questions  on  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are  bound  up  with 
the  works  of  St.  Augustine,  but  which  Blondel  thinks 
were  written  by  Hilary,  the  deacon,  says,  "  Paul  shows 
that  a  presbyter  is  meant  when  he  speaks  of  a  bishop, 
for  he  points  out  to  Timothy,  whom  he  had  made  a 
presbyter,  what  kind  of  a  person  he  should  ordain  a 
bishop.  For  what  is  a  bishop  but  the  first  presbyter; 
that  is,  the  highest  priest  ?    In  fine,  he  speaks  of  them 

*  "  In  episcopo  omncs  ordines  sunt,  quia  primus  sacerdos  est,  hoc 
est,  princcpsest  saccrilotum,  ct  prophcta,  et  evangeliata,"  &c. 

t  "  Post  episcopum  diaconi  ordinutioncin  subjicit.  Quarc,  nisi  quia 
episcopi  et  presbyteri  una  ordinatio  est,  utcrque  eniiu  sacerdos  est, 
sed  episcopus  primus  est,"  &c. 

24 


370 


LETTERS  OX 


as  his  fellow-presbyters  and  fellow-priests.  Does  a 
bishop  call  the  deacons  his  fellow-ministers  ?  No,  as- 
suredly, for  they  are  greatly  his  inferiors.  In  Alex- 
andria and  all  Egypt,  if  a  bishop  be  wanting,  a  priest 
consecrates  or  ordains.  That  there  is  a  great  distance 
between  a  deacon  and  a  priest  is  evident  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles."*  But  if,  as  this  writer  de- 
clares, Paul  meant  bishops  when  he  spake  of  presby- 
ters, if  the  bishop  was  only  the  first  presbyter,  and  if 
presbyters  ordained  when  the  bishop  was  absent ;  and 
if,  as  he  further  asserts,  (Quest.  46,)  no  one  could  act 
in  the  room  of  a  minister  who  held  any  office,  if  he 
was  not  possessed  of  power  to  execute  that  office,  it  is 
plain  that  he  must  have  regarded  bishops  and  presby- 
ters as  nearly  the  same,  and  that  his  sentiments  must 
have  been  similar  to  those  of  Jerome. 

"Although,"  says  Augustine  to  Jerome,  "  accord- 
ing to  the  names  of  honour  which  custom  has  now 
introduced  into  the  Church,  the  office  of  a  bishop  is 
higher  than  that  of  a  presbyter,  yet  in  many  things 
Augustine  is  inferior  to  Jerome,"t  where  he  represents 
the  superiority  of  the  former  to  the  latter  as  originat- 
ing merely  in  custom.  "  If  it  is  asked,"  says  Prima- 
sius,  Bishop  of  Adrumetum,  who  was  a  disciple  of 
Augustine,  "  why  the  Apostle,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  made  no 
mention  of  presbyters,  but  comprehended  them  under 
the  name  of  bishops;  it  was,"  he  replies,  "because 
they  are  the  second  and  nearly  the  same  degree,  as  he 
shows  when  writing  to  the  Philippians;  for  he  addresses 
his  Epistle  to  the  bishops  and  deacons,  though  one 
city  could  not  have  a  plurality  of  bishops. %"  And, 
says  Chrysostom,  in  his  11th  Homily,  "omitting  the 
order  of  the  presbyters  he  passes  to  the  deacons.  And 

*  "  Presbyterum  autem  intelligi  episcopum  probat  Paulus  Apostolus 
quando  Timotheum  quem  ordinavit  presbyterum  instruit  qualem  de- 
beat  creare  episcopum.  Quid  est  enim  episcopus  nisi  primus  presby- 
ter? Nam  in  Alexandria  et  per  totam  -Egyptum,  si  desit  episcopus, 
consecrat  presbyter,"  &c. 

+  "  Quanquam  secundum  honorum  vocabula  quae  jam  ecclesiae  usus 
obtinuit  episcopatus  presbylerio  major  sit,"  &c.  Epist.  19.  ad  Hieron. 

t  "  Quaeritur  cur  de  presbyteris  nullam  fecerit  mentionem,  sed  eos 
in  episcoporum  nomine  comprehenderit :  quia  secundus,  into pene  unus 
est  gradus,  sicut  ad  Philippenses,"  &c. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


371 


why  so  ?  Because  there  is  not  much  difference  be- 
tween bishops  and  presbyters ;  for  presbyters  are  or- 
dained for  the  instruction  and  government  of  the 
Church  ;  and  the  same  things  which  he  said  to  bishops 
apply  to  presbyters  ;  for  in  ordination  alone  they  are 
superior  to  presbyters,  and  appear  to  be  above  them."* 

But  admitting  that  these  writers  agree  with  Jerome, 
and  the  difference  between  them,  if  there  be  any,  is 
extremely  small,  let  us  consider  very  shortly  what  is 
said  on  this  subject  by  the  early  fathers.  And  here  I 
must  repeat  a  former  remark,  that  it  will  not  avail  the 
cause  of  Episcopacy,  though  we  should  meet  with  the 
names  of  bisbops,  priests  and  deacons,  unless  it  be 
distinctly  stated,  that  the  powers  which  were  possessed 
by  the  primitive  bishops  correspond  to  those  which 
are  claimed  at  present  by  diocesan  bishops. 

The  first  of  these  is  Clemens  Romanus,  whose  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  perhaps  the  purest  pro- 
duction of  Christian  antiquity,  though  his  argument 
for  the  resurrection  from  that  of  the  Phoenix  is  so 
weak  and  contemptible,  that  we  would  scarcely  have 
expected  it  to  have  been  used  by  a  man  who  was 
entitled  to  the  high  character  which  is  ascribed  to 
him  by  Episcopalians."!    It  deserves,  however,  to  be 

*  "  To  rm  Tr^iT&inifm  ray/ua  cupae,"  &c.  Homily  on  1  Tim.  iii.  1. 
Thcodorct,  too,  says,  "The  Apostle  calls  a  presbyter  a  bishop,  as  wc 
showed  when  we  expounded  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  which  may 
be  also  learned  from  this  place  ;  for,  after  the  precepts  proper  to 
bishops,  he  describes  the  things  that  agree  to  deacons.  But,  as  I  said, 
of  old  they  called  the  same  men  Loth  bishops  and  presbyters" 

+  "  Let  us  consider,"  says  he,  "  that  wonderful  type  of  the  resur- 
rection, which  is  seen  in  the  Eastern  countries,  that  is  to  say,  in 
Arabia.  There  is  a  certain  bird,  called  a  Phoenix :  of  this  there  is 
never  bat  one  at  a  time,  and  that  lives  five  hundred  years;  and  when 
the  time  of  its  dissolution  draws  near,  that  it  must  die,  it  makes  it- 
self a  nest  of  frankincense,  and  myrrh,  and  other  spices;  into  which, 
when  its  time  is  fulfilled,  it  enters  and  dies.  But  its  flesh,  putrefy- 
ing, breeds  a  certain  worm,  which,  being  nourished  with  the  juice 
of  the  dead  bird,  brings  forth  feathers;  and  when  it  is  grown  to  a 
perfect  state,  it  takes  up  the  nest  in  which  the  bones  of  its  parent 
lie,  and  carries  it  from  Arabia  into  Egypt,  to  a  city  called  Helio- 
polis:  and  Hying  in  open  day,  in  the  sight  of  all  men,  lays  it  upon 
the  altar  of  the  sun,  and  so  returns  from  whence  it  came.  The 
priests  then  search  into  the  records  of  the  time,  and  find  that  it  re. 


372 


LETTERS  OX 


noticed,  that  it  is  neither  addressed  to  a  bishop,  but  to 
the  Church  of  Corinth  ;  nor  is  there  the  slightest  notice 
of  him  in  any  part  of  the  Epistle,  but  he  speaks  always 
of  their  rulers,  (<tftovpBw)  and  presbyters,  (n^o^vn^ot,) 
though  Archbishop  Wake,  in  order  to  keep  the  latter 
out  of  view,  translates  the  term,  "  such  as  were  aged." 
And  says  Stillingdeet,  "  Had  Episcopacy  been  insti- 
tuted on  the  occasion  of  the  schism  at  Corinth,"  (as 
many  Episcopalians  contend,)  "  certainly  of  all  places 
we  should  the  soonest  have  heard  of  a  bishop  at 
Corinth  for  the  remedying  of  it;  and  yet  almost  of  all 
places,  these  heralds  that  derive  the  succession  of 
bishops  from  the  Apostles'  times  are  the  most  plunged 
whom  to  fix  on  at  Corinth.  And  they  that  can  find 
any  one  single  bishop  at  Corinth  at  the  time  when 
Clemens  wrote  his  Epistle  to  them,  (about  another 
schism  as  great  as  the  former,  which  certainly  had 
not  been  according  to  their  opinioti,  if  a  bishop  had 
been  there  before.)  must  have  better  eyes  and  judg- 
ment than  the  deservedly  admired  Grotius,  (and  he 
was  a  great  friend  of  Episcopacy,)  who  brings  this,  in 
his  Epistle  to  Bignonius,  as  an  argument  of  the  un- 
doubted antiquity  of  that  Epistle,  that  Clement  no 
where  mentions  that  singular  authority  of  bishops, 
which,  by  Church  customs,  after  the  death  of  Mark 
at  Alexandria,  and  by  its  example  in  other  places, 
began  to  be  introduced;  but  Clement  clearly  shows, 
as  did  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  then,  by  the  common 
council  of  the  presbyters,  who,  both  by  Paul  and  Cle- 
ment, are  called  bishops,  the  Churches  were  govern- 
ed."* Nay,  when  he  speaks  of  the  persons  against 
whom  the  schismatics  had  risen  up,  he  represents 
them  as  the  presbyters,  and  never  makes  the  smallest 
allusion  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  "  It  is  a  shame,  my  belov- 
ed," says  he,  "yea,  a  very  great  shame,  and  unworthy 
of  your  Christian  profession,  to  hear  that  the  most 
firm  and  ancient  Church  of  the  Corinthians  should, 

turned  precisely  at  the  end  of  Jive  hundred  years."  And  yet  Cle- 
ment, who  retails  ihis  fable,  and  reasons  from  it,  is  the  best  of  all  the 
fathers. 

«  Irenicum,  p.  279,  260. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


373 


by  one  or  two  persons,  be  led  into  a  sedition  against 
its  priests,"  as  Archbishop  Wake  renders  it,  or,  ac- 
cording to  the  original,  "its  presbyters,  (nztcpvnzovs.") 
And  it  is  the  same  persons  to  whom  he  endeavours  to 
bring  them  into  subjection.  "  Who  is  there  among 
you  that  is  generous?  Let  him  say,  if  this  sedition, 
this  contention,  and  these  schisms  be  on  my  account, 
I  am  ready  to  depart,  to  go  whithersoever  ye  please, 
and  to  do  whatsoever  ye  command  me  ;  only  let  the 
flock  of  Christ  be  in  peace,  with  the  (elders,  Arch- 
bishop Wake,)  presbyters  that  are  set  over  it, 
(xaOisafitvuv  ft^ca^vti^v.")  And  yet  Clement  is  one 
of  the  writers  to  whom  Bishop  Russel,Mr.  Boyd,  and 
other  Episcopalians  are  accustomed  to  appeal,  as 
proving  that  the  Church  was  then  governed  by  dio- 
cesan bishops. 

Clement  indeed  says,  that  "  the  Apostles  knew,  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  contention  would  arise  on 
account  of  the  name  of  the  episcopate.  And  there- 
fore, having  a  perfect  foreknowledge  of  this,  they  ap- 
pointed persons,  and  then  gave  directions  how,  when 
they  should  die,  other  chosen  and  approved  men 
should  succeed  in  their  ministry."  And  he  tells  us 
in  another  passage,  that  the  Apostles,  "preaching 
through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the  first  fruits 
of  their  ministry  bishops  and  deacons  (Archbishop 
Wake,  ministers,)  over  such  as  should  believe,  after 
they  had  proved  them  by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  this 
any  thing  new,  since  long  before  it  was  written  con- 
cerning bishops  and  deacons.  For  thus  saith  the 
Scripture  in  a  certain  place,  I  will  appoint  their 
bishops  in  righteousness,  and  their  deacons  in  faith." 
Now,  the  first  observation  which  is  suggested  by  these 
passages  is  this,  that  he  mentions  only  two,  and  not 
three  orders  of  ministers  as  appointed  for  the  Church. 
And  it  is  impossible  to  escape  from  this  remark,  by 
saying  with  Mr.  Boyd,  that  the  Apostles  were  still 
living,  and  that  they  occupied  the  place  of  the  first 
order:  for  it  is  evident,  from  the  first  quotation,  that 
he  enumerates  the  orders  of  ministers  who  were  to 
govern  and  instruct  the  Church  after  their  death. 


374 


LETTERS  ON 


And  it  is  further  evident,  that  the  highest  of  these  two 
orders,  or  the  bishops,  were  the  presbyters,  of  whom 
he  had  been  speaking  throughout  the  whole  Epistle 
as  set  over  the  Church  of  Corinth,  as  well  as  other 
Churches,  and  in  reference  to  whom  he  says  at  the 
conclusion,  "  Do  ye  therefore,  who  lajd  the  founda- 
tion of  this  sedition,  submit  yourselves  unto  your 
presbyters,  bending  the  knees  of  your  hearts."  Milner 
accordingly  admits  this ;  for,  says  he,  "At  first  indeed, 
and  for  so,me  time,  church  governors  were  only  of 
two  ranks,  presbyters  and  deacons.  The  Church  of 
Corinth  continued  long  in  this  state,  us  fur  us  one 
muy  judge  from  Clement's  Epistle."*  And  says  Fa- 
ber,  "  Here  we  may  observe  no  more  than  two  orders 
are  specified,  the  word  bishops  being  plainly  used  as 
equipollent  to  the  word  presbyters ;  and  all  possi- 
bility of  misapprehension  is  avoided  by  the  circum- 
stance of  Clement's  affirmation,  that  the  appointment 
of  these  two  orders  was  foretold  in  prophecy  which 
announced  the  appointment  of  exactly  two  descrip- 
tions of  spirituul  officers.  Had  the  Church  in  Cle- 
ment's time  universally  acknowledged  and  believed 
that  three  distinct  orders  of  clergy  had  been  appointed, 
that  father  never  could  have  asserted  such  a  form  of 
polity  to  be  foretold  in  a  prophecy  which  announced 
the  appointment  of  no  more  than  two  sorts  of  officers, 
described  as  being  overseers  and  ministers. "t  And 
it  agrees  exactly  with  the  interpretation  of  the  pro- 
phecy given  by  Irenaeus,  in  a  passage  before  quoted, 
where  he  observes,  "Such  presbyters  the  Church 
nourishes,  of  whom  the  prophet  says,  I  will  give  thee 
thy  princes  or  rulers  in  peace,  and  thy  bishops  in 
righteousness."  And  though,  as  Bishop  Russel  re- 
marks, "  Clement  reminds  them,  that,  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  the  high-priest  had  his  proper  services  to 
perform  ;  that  to  the  priests  their  particular  place  was 
appointed;  and  that  the  Levites  also  had  their  allotted 
ministry  to  discharge;"  it  can  no  more  be  inferred 
that  he  intended  to  assert  that  there  ought  to  be  as 

*  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  161. 

t  Consult  him  on  the  Vallenses  and  Albigenses,  p.  558. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


375 


many  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry  as  in  the  Jewish, 
than  it  conld  be  alleged  that  he  meant  to  teach  ns 
that  there  ought  to  be  as  many  orders  in  it  as  there 
were  gradations  of  rank  in  an  army ;  because,  when 
enforcing  subjection,  he  says  in  another  passage,  "  all 
are  not  generals,  nor  colonels,  nor  captains,  nor  in- 
ferior officers,  but  every  one  in  his  respective  rank 
does  what  is  commanded  him  by  the  king,  and  those 
who  have  the  authority  over  him." 

And  though  he  says  that  "  the  Apostles  knew  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  should  contentions 
arise  upon  account  of  the  episcopate,"  yet  it  is  plain, 
from  the  conclusion  of  the  paragraph,  that  it  means 
merely  the  over-sight  or  superintendence  of  a  con- 
gregation; for  he  represents  it  as  an  oversight  or  epis- 
copacy which  could  be  performed  by  presbyters.  "  It 
would  be  no  small  sin  in  us,"  says  he,  "should  we 
cast  off  those  from  the  episcopate,"  or,  as  it  is  trans- 
lated by  Archbishop  Wake  in  the  notes,  "  bishopric, 
who  holily,  and  without  blame,  fulfil  the  duties  of 
it."  After  which  he  adds,  showing  that  he  is  speak- 
ing of  presbyters,  "  Blessed  are  those  presbyters, 
(?t£{oj3urf£<H,)  who,  having  finished  their  course  before 
these  times,  have  obtained  a  fruitful  and  perfect  dis- 
solution, for  they  have  no  fear  lest  any  one  should 
turn  them  out  of  the  place  which  is  now  appointed 
for  the?n."  Not  a  particle  of  evidence,  then,  can  be 
produced  from  Clement  for  diocesan  Episcopacy.* 

*  When  Clement  says  that  the  Apostles,  foreseeing  there  would  be 
contentions  about  the  episcopate,  appointed  fit  persons  to  succeed 
them,  Dr.  Hammond,  in  his  Power  of  the  Keys,  c.  iii.  p.  413,  and  Dr. 
Arden,  in  his  Discourse  on  the  passage,  translate  the  word,  i-riv.ium, 
list,  and  render  the  phrase  thus,  "  They  left  a  list  of  other  chosen  and 
approved  men  to  succeed  them  in  their  ministry."  "They  set  down," 
says  Hammond,  a  list  or  continuation  of  successors  ;"  which  version 
the  Tractarians  in  their  notes  on  this  passage  seem  to  favour.  It 
would  be  truly  satisfactory  if  any  of  the  Tractarians,  or  any  other 
Episcopalian,  could  mention  a  single  father  who  had  seen  the  list,  and 
examined  the  names  in  it,  and  ascertained  whether  it  fixed  their  suc- 
cessors for  the  following  century,  or  the  first  six  centuries,  or  till  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  whether  it  included  their  successors  in  all 
the  Churches.  And  it  would  be  still  more  satisfactory,  if  he  could 
tell  where  it  was  now  to  be  found.  If  it  could  only  be  discovered, 
how  invaluable  would  it  be  to  the  Christian  Church:  It  would  settle 


376 


LETTERS  ON 


The  next  document  which  is  quoted  by  Bishop 
Russel  in  proof  of  the  existence  of  three  Episcopal 
orders,  is  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians. 
But  he  has  omitted  to  tell  us  in  what  part  of  it  he 
found  them,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  discover  it. 
Polycarp  does  not  represent  himself  as  a  bishop,  and 
for  aught  that  appears,  he  might  have  been  only 
the  senior  presbyter  or  moderator  of  the  Church  of 
Smyrna.  He  makes  no  allusion  to  a  diocesan  bishop 
at  Philippi,  or  to  any  vacancy  in  that  see,  or  to  any 
bishop  in  any  other  diocese.  And  though  he  points 
out  the  duties  of  deacons  and  presbyters,  he  does  not 
give  the  smallest  hint  of  a  superior  order,  nor  make 
any  reference  to  the  duties  belonging  to  it.  And  as 
Archbishop  Wake  fixes  the  date  of  Ihis  Epistle  "  at 
the  end  of  the  year  of  our  Lord  116,  or  in  the  begin- 
ning of  117,"  (Preliminary  Discourse,  p.  119,)  the 
silence  of  Polycarp  respecting  the  Episcopal  order,  so 
far  from  supporting  the  assertion  of  Bishop  Russel, 
furnishes  a  strong  presumptive  proof  that  it  had  not 
at  that  time  been  introduced  into  the  Church. 

The  third,  however,  and  the  principal  authority  to 
which  Episcopalians  appeal  for  the  existence  of  these 
orders  at  that  early  period,  are  the  short  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  which  were  written,  according  to  Bishop 
Russel,  in  the  year  110,  or  in  116.*  But  before  any 
argument  can  be  founded  on  them  in  support  of  their 
principles,  two  things  must  be  proved  ;  1st,  not  only 
that  they  were  written  by  Ignatius,  but  that  they  are 
so  free  from  interpolation,  as  that  we  can  depend  on 
them  as  the  uncorrupted  writings  of  Ignatius ;  and, 
2d/y,  that  if  they  are  genuine,  as  when  they  issued 
from  the  pen  of  the  Martyr,  they  present  such  a  view 

at  once,  by  ocular  demonstration,  all  dispute  about  the  apostolic  suc- 
cession; for  we  would  require  only  to  look  into  it,  to  see  whether  the 
bishops  who  had  come  after  them  in  all  the  Churches  for  1800  years, 
were  the  very  individuals  whom  the  Apostles,  before  they  died,  put 
down  in  their  list.  And  there  would  be  no  need  for  the  sovereign 
to  issue  a  conge  d'elire  in  future  to  any  dean  and  chapter  to  elect  a 
new  bishop,  for  they  would  require  only  to  examine  some  certified 
copy  of  the  list,  and  see  who  came  nest.  It  is  difficult  to  write  with 
any  thing  like  patience  of  such  absurdities. 
*  Sermon,  p.  28. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


377 


of  the  powers  of  bishops  as  is  inconsistent  with  Pres- 
bytery, and  confirm  the  powers  which  are  claimed 
and  exercised  by  diocesan  bishops.  Now,  I  deny 
that  they  can  establish  either  of  these  positions,  though, 
from  the  length  to  which  this  discussion  has  already 
extended,  I  am  prevented  from  entering  so  fully  into 
the  subject  as  I  had  originally  intended. 

I  am  aware,  that  when  Calvin  and  the  Centurists 
of  Magdeburgh  rejected  these  Epistles,  it  was  the 
long  Epistles,  and  not  those  which  Avere  discovered 
by  Usher  and  Vossius,  and  therefore  I  do  not  found 
on  their  opinion  with  regard  to  the  latter.  But  I 
would  remind  Episcopalians,  that  Whitgift,  and  Bil- 
son,  and  others  of  their  bishops,  contended  as  zealously 
for  the  genuineness  of  the  former,  though  it  is  now 
abandoned  by  every  one  as  utterly  untenable,  as  they 
themselves  contend  for  that  of  the  short  Epistles. 
Salmasius  and  Blondel  deny  the  genuineness  of  the 
latter,  and  were  ably  supported  not  only  by  Daille, 
but  by  La  Roque,  the  suppression  of  whose  second 
dissertation,  through  the  influence  of  the  Episco- 
palians of  his  day,  was  acknowledged  by  his  son,  as 
is  mentioned  by  Mr.  Jamieson  in  his  Examination  of 
the  Fundamentals  of  the  Hierarchy.*  Dr.  Owen,  too, 
of  whom  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sinclair  says  that  he  was  re- 
spectable for  his  piety,  as  well  as  erudition,!  so  far 
from  entertaining  an  opposite  opinion,  as  he  supposes, 

*  "La  Roque,  in  favour  of  his  deceased  friend,  (Daille,)  undertook 
the  patrociny  of  this  hero;  and  except  fame  be  altogether  false,  has 
fortunately  defended  his  judgment.  These  observations  were  again 
assaulted  by  the  famous  Beveridge,  to  whom  our  author,  preparing 
an  answer  which  we  have  hy  us,  almost  perfected,  through  the  impor- 
tunity of  some  friends,  was  suddenly  turned  another  way.  Thus  he, 
and  who  these  friends  were  we  are  informed  by  another  author,  a  man 
of  the  Episcopal  persuasion,  and  therefore  may  the  better  be  believed 
in  this  matter,  viz.  Jos.  Walker,  translator  of  La  Roque's  History  of 
the  Eucharist,  who,  describing  the  life  of  La  Roque,  which  he  pre- 
fixes to  his  translation,  tells  us,  that  at  the  request  of  some  persons 
favouring  Episcopacy,  he  did  not  finish  this  second  piece."  Jamie- 
son's  Fundamentals  of  the  Hierarchy  examined,  p.  112. 

t  Dissertations  vindicating  the  Church  of  England,  p.  57,  note. — It 
is  evident  that  Mr.  Sinclair  is  not  acquainted  with  the  writings  of 
Dr.  Owen,  which  contain  a  view  of  his  sentiments  respecting  these 
Epistles. 


378 


LETTERS  OX 


says,  that  "  these  Epistles  seemed  to  him  to  be  like 
the  children  that  the  Jews  had  by  their  stran?e  wives. 
Neh.  xiii..  who  spake  partly  in  the  language  of  Ash- 
dod.  and  partly  in  the  language  of  the  Jews."*  Mo- 
sheim  says,  "  So  considerable  a  desree  of  obscurity 
hangs  over  the  question  respecting  the  authenticity  of 
not  only  a  part,  but  the  whole  of  the  Epistles  ascribed 
to  Ignatius,  as  to  render  it  altogether  a  case  of  much  in- 
tricacy and  doubt."  And  again,  he  remarks,  "to  ascer- 
tain with  precision  the  exact  extent  to  which  they  may 
be  considered  genuine  appears  to  me  to  be  beyond  the 
reach  of  all  human  penetration. "t  Dr.  Xeander  re- 
presents them  as  "  interpolated  by  some  one  who  was 
prejudiced  in  favour  of  the  Hierarchy;"  (Church 
History,  vol.  i.  p.  190.)  And  Ernesti  declares  in  his 
MS.  Lectures,  that  "though  he  sat  down  to  the  pe- 
rusal of  them  under  an  impression  that  they  were 
genuine,  he  was  forced,  while  reading  them,  to  come 
to  the  conclusion,  that  it  was  scarcely  credible  that  an 
apostolical  man,  such  as  Ignatius  was,  could  have 
written  them  as  they  now  are."i  And  that  this  con- 
clusion was  just  will  appear,  I  think,  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations: 

1.  Passages  are  quoted  from  them  by  some  of  the 
fathers  which  are  not  now  to  be  found  in  them. 
Jerome,  for  instance,  says,  (Dial.  3,  contra  Pelag.) 
"  Ignatius,  an  apostolical  man  and  martyr,  writes 
boldly,  that  the  I^ord  chose  as  Apostles  men  who  were 
sinners  above  all  others."  It  was  indeed  a  bold  say- 
ing, but  it  does  not  occur  in  any  of  the  Epistles:  and 
if  they  have  undergone  some  changes,  and  have  some 
things  left  out,  why  might  they  not  undergo  others, 
and  have  some  things  put  in? 

*  Preface  of  his  Treatise  on  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  p.  13. 
"  The  foysted  passages,"  says  he,  p.  10,  "  in  many  places  are  so  evi- 
dent, that  no  man  who  is  not  resolved  to  say  any  thing,  without  care 
of  proof  or  truth,  can  once  appeare  in  any  defeusative  of  them." 

+  Commentary  by  Vindal,  vol.  i.  p.  276,278. 

X  "  Ernesti  vero  se  etsi  ad  leclionem  harurn  epistolarum  cum 
opinione  esse  ger.uinas  accesserit,  tamen  inter  legendum  cognovisse 
profitetur,  vix  credible  virum  apostolicum,  qualis  fuerit  Ignatius,  sic 
scripsisse."  &c. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


379 


2.  Many  weak  and  foolish  things  occur  in  them,  as 
Ernesti  observes,  "  and  scarcely  worthy  of  an  aposto- 
lical man.  You  meet  with  numerous  passages  ahout 
the  dignity  and  prerogatives  of  bishops  and  presbyters ; 
and  the  constant  song  of  almost  all  the  Epistles  is  this, 
"Honour  the  bishop,  and  you  will  honour  God  the 
Father;  honour  the  presbyters,  and  you  will  honour 
the  Son;  honour  the  deacons,  and  you  will  honour 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  a  comparison  of  the  ministers 
of  the  Church  with  the  Sacred  Trinity  is  unquestion- 
ably unworthy  of  an  apostolical  man."*  And  it  is 
impossible,  I  think,  to  look  into  these  Epistles,  with- 
out perceiving  that  his  observations  are  well  founded. 
In  the  first  of  them,  for  example,  the  duties  of  the 
Church  of  Ephesus  to  the  bishop,  (and  it  extends  to 
little  more  than  eight  pages,)  are  dwelt  on  more  fre- 
quently than  the  duties  of  the  members  of  the  Church 
to  its  ministers  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  In  the 
second,  (the  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians,)  which  extends 
to  five  pages,  the  bishop  is  brought  forward  six  times; 
in  the  third,  (the  Epistle 'to  the  Trallians,)  which  is 
scarcely  five  pages,  seven  times;  in  the  fifth,  (to  the 
Philadelphians,)  which  is  little  more  than4four  pages, 
five  times;  in  the  sixth,  (to  the  Church  of  Smyrna,) 
three  times;  and  once  in  very  strong  terms  in  the  short 
Epistle  to  Polycarp.  And  compare  the  language  in 
which  the  Scriptures  point  out  the  degree  of  respect, 
and  the  other  duties  which  are  due  from  Christians  to 
their  ministers,  with  that  which  is  used  in  ihese  Epis- 
tles to  express  the  respect  which  was  considered  to  be 
due  especially  to  bishops.  "  We  beseech  you  breth- 
ren," said  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  (1  Thess.  v.  12, 
13,)  "to  know  them  which  are  over  you  in  the  Lord, 
and  admonish  you;  and  to  esteem  them  very  highly 
iri  love  for  their  work's  sake."    "  Let  the  presbyters 

*  "  Multa  jejuna  et  viro  apostolico  vix  digna.  Multa  enim  in  iis 
repenuntur  loca  dc  dignitate  et  praerogativa  episcoporum  et  presby- 
terorum  ;  et  continua  fere  omnium  epistolarum  cantilena  est,  honora 
Episeopum,  et  hor.orabis  Deum  Patrcin ;  honora  prcsbvteros,  et 
honorabis  Filium;  honora  diaconos,  et  honorabis  Spiritum  Sanctum. 
Talis  vero  comparatio  ministrorum  ecclesiac  cum  S  S.  Trinitate  pro- 
fecto  est  indigna  viro  apostolico." 


380 


LETTERS  ON 


that  rule  well,"  said  he  to  Timothy,  (  1  Tim.  v.  17,) 
"be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,"  (or,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  following  verse,  maintenance, 
where  it  is  required,)  "especially  they  who  labour  in 
the  word  and  doctrine."  And  said  he  to  the  Hebrews, 
(xiii.  17,)  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you, 
and  submit  yourselves;  for  they  watch  for  your  souls, 
as  they  that  must  give  account."  But  the  following 
are  the  terms  in  which  the  dignity  of  the  bishop  is 
represented  in  these  Epistles,  and  in  which  they  point 
out  the  honour  which  was  due  to  him : 

"  I  beseech  you,  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  love  your  bishop, 
and  that  you  would  all  strive  to  be  like  unto  him.  It 
becomes  you  to  run  together,  according  to  the  will  of 
your  bishop,  as  also  ye  do.  For  your  famous  presby- 
tery (worthy  of  God)  is  fitted  as  exactly  to  the  bishop 
as  the  strings  are  to  the  harp.  You  are  joined  to  him 
as  the  Church  is  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  Jesus  Christ  to 
the  Father.  The  more  that  any  one  sees  his  bishop 
silent,  the  more  let  him  revere  him."  "  It  is  there- 
fore evident  that  we  ought  to  look  upon  the  bishop 
even  as  we  ivotild  do  upon  the  Lord  himself  7"  Epis- 
tle to  the  F^phesians. 

"  I  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in  a 
divine  concord:  your  bishop  presiding  in  the  place 
of  God ;  your  presbyters  in  the  place  of  the  Council 
(or  Sanhedrim)  of  the  Apostles ;  and  your  deacons, 
most  dear  to  me,  being  entrusted  with  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  was  with  the  Father  before  all  ages, 
and  appeared  in  the  end  to  us.  It  will  behove  you, 
with  all  sincerity,  to  obey  your  bishop  in  honour  of 
him,  whose  pleasure  it  is  that  ye  should  do  so.  As 
therefore  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  nothing  without 
the  Father  being  united  to  him,  so  neither  do  ye  any 
thing  without  your  bishop  and  presbyters.  Study  to 
be  confirmed  in  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord,  and  of  his 
Apostles,  that  so  ye  may  prosper  together  with  your 
most  worthy  bishop,  and  the  well-wrought  spiritual 
crown  of  your  presbytery,  and  your  deacons,  which 
are  according  to  God."    Epistle  to  the  Magnesians. 

"  Whereas  ye  are  subject  to  your  bishop  as  to  Jesus 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


381 


Christ,  ye  appear  to  me  to  live  not  after  the  manner 
of  men,  but  according  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  died  for 
us,  that  so  believing  in  his  death,  ye  might  escape 
death.  It  is  therefore  necessary,  that  as  ye  do,  so 
without  your  bishop  you  should  do  nothing;  also  be 
subject  to  your  presbyters,  as  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  hope.  In  like  manner,  let  all  reverence 
the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ  and  the  bishop  as  the 
Father,  and  the  presbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of  God, 
and  College  of  the  Apostles.  Without  these  there  is 
no  Church.  I  have  received,  and  now  have  with  me, 
the  pattern  of  your  love  in  your  bishop,  whose  very 
look  is  instructive,  and  whose  mildness  powerful, 
whom  I  am  persuaded  the  very  Atheists  themselves 
cannot  but  reverence.  It  becomes  every  one  of  you, 
especially  the  presbyters,  to  refresh  the  bis/urn,  to  the 
honour  of  the  Father,  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Apostles."    Epistle  to  the  Trallians. 

"  The  bishop  is  fitted  to  the  commands,  as  the  harp 
to  the  strings.  As  many  as  are  of  God  and  of  Jesus 
Christ  are  also  with  their  bishop.  Although  some 
would  have  deceived  me  according  to  the  flesh,  yet 
the  Spirit,  being  from  God,  is  not  deceived;  for  it 
knows  both  whence  it  comes,  and  whether  it  goes,  and 
reproves  the  secrets  of  the  heart.  I  cried  while  I  was 
among  you,  I  spake  with  a  loud  voice,  Attend  to  the 
bishop,  and  to  the  presbytery,  and  to  the  deacons. 
Now,  some  supposed  that  I  spake  this  as  foreseeing 
the  division  that  should  come  among  you.  But  he  is 
my  witness  for  whose  sake  I  am  in  bonds,  that  I  knew 
nothing  from  any  man;  but  the  Spirit  spake,  saying 
on  this  ivise,  Do  nothing  without  the  bishop!  The 
Lord  forgives  all  that  repent,  if  they  return  to  the  unity 
of  God,  and  to  the  council  of  the  bishop."  Epistle  to 
the  Philadelphians. 

"  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  bishop  as  Jesus 
Christ  the  Father;  and  the  presbytery,  as  the  Apos- 
tles; and  reverence  the  deacons,  as  the  command  of 
God.  Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let 
the  people  also  be;  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is 
the  Catholic  Church.    It  is  a  good  thing  to  have  a  due 


382 


LETTERS  ON 


regard  "both  to  God  and  to  the  bishop ;  he  that  honours 
the  bishop  shall  be  honoured  by  God;  but  he  that 
does  any  thing  without  his  knowledge,  ministers  unto 
the  devil."    Epistle  to  the  Smyrneans. 

u  Hearken  unto  the  bishop,  that  God  also  may 
hearken  unto  you.  Uy  soul  be  security  for  them 
that  submit  to  their  bishop,  icith  their  presbyters 
and  deacons.  And  may  my  portion  be  together 
with  theirs  in  God."    Epistle  to  Polvcarp. 

Now,  I  would  ask  any  candid  and  impartial  indivi- 
dual, whether  language  like  this  is  employed  in  the 
New  Testament  respecting  even  an  Apostle  or  Evan- 
gelist, or  whether  honour  like  this  was  claimed  to  the 
highest  of  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  that  early  age 
from  the  members  of  the  Church?  Did  any  of  them 
declare  that  he  was  moved  by  the  Spirit  to  cry  with  a 
loud  voice,  "  Attend  to  the  bishop,  and  to  the  presby- 
ters, and  to  the  deacons?"  Or  say  that  he  would  be 
security  for  those  who  did  so?  Or  call  upon  them  to 
look  upon  a  bishop  even  as  they  would  do  upon  the 
Lord  himself?  I  would  inquire  farther,  whether  any 
thing  like  it  is  to  be  met  with,  not  only  in  the  Epistle 
of  Clement,  but  in  any  of  the  remains  of  Christian 
antiquity  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  even  when  heresies  abounded,  and  when  it 
might  have  been  considered  as  advisable  to  increase 
the  influence  of  orthodox  bishops?  And  if  he  shall 
answer  in  the  negative,  I  would  submit  it  to  his  calm 
and  deliberate  judgment,  whether  it  does  not  furnish 
a  very  strong  and  decisive  proof,  that  these  celebrated 
Epistles,  to  which  Episcopalians  appeal  for  one  of 
their  strongest  arguments,  but  which  are  completely 
without  a  parallel  among  the  early  fathers,  must  have 
been  interpolated  by  some  one  in  a  subsequent 
age,  who  was  desirous  to  exalt  the  authority  of  the 
bishops? 

3.  These  Epistles  contain  some  exceedingly  errone- 
ous opinions,  which  I  can  scarcely  believe  would  have 
been  held  by  Ignatius.  He  aflirms  distinctly,  that  even 
the  holy  angels  require  to  believe  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  that  they  may  be  saved  from  condemnation. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


383 


"  Let  no  man  deceive  himself,"  says  he,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Church  of  Smyrna:  "both  the  things  which  are 
in  heaven,  and  the  glorious  angels  and  princes,  whether 
visible  or  invisible,  if  they  believe  not  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  it  shall  be  to  them  to  condemnation."  And 
yet  Paul  declares  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that 
the  Redeemer  "  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels," 
or  rather,  "  laid  not  hold  of  them"  to  save  them  from 
misery,  "  but  he  laid  hold  on  the  seed  of  Abraham." 
He  says  also  to  the  Church  of  Tralles,  "  My  soul  be 
your  expiation  not  only  now,  but  when  I  shall  have 
attained  unto  God,  for  I  am  yet  under  danger."  And 
he  says  to  the  Ephesians,  "  My  soul  be  for  yours,  and 
I  myself  the  expiatory  offering  for  your  Church  of 
Ephesus,  so  famous  throughout  the  world."    But  in 
what  sense  he  could  represent  himself  as  an  expiation 
to  God,  after  he  had  been  received  into  heaven,  for 
men  upon  earth,  without  being  chargeable  with  blas- 
phemy, I  cannot  comprehend.    And  in  opposition  to 
the  original  institution  of  marriage,  the  example  of 
some  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that 
"marriage  is  honourable  in  all,"  he  approves  of  celi- 
bacy.   "  If  any  man,"  says  he,  in  his  Epistle  to  Poly- 
carp,  "can  remain  in  a  virgin  state,  to  the  honour  of  the 
flesh  of  Christ,  let  him  remain  without  boasting;  but 
if  he  boast,  he  is  undone.  And  if  he  desire  to  be  more 
taken  notice  of  than  the  bishop,  he  is  corrupted."  As 
we  have  no  evidence,  however,  that  this  doctrine  was 
introduced  at  so  early  a  period  into  the  Christian 
Church,  I  consider  it  as  presenting  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  the  Epistle  must  have  been  interpolated,  and 
indeed  the  whole  of  it  is  pronounced  by  Usher  to  be 
spurious. 

I  have  only  farther  to  remark,  in  the  language  of 
Emesti,  that  "  there  are  Latin  words  in  these  Epistles 
which  no  Greek  writer  in  the  first  and  second  century 
used,  but  which  began  to  be  used  by  Greek  writers 
in  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries.  For  instance, 
Seotgtuz,  for  which  all  the  writers  of  those  times  used 
anoaaxr^,  as  is  done  in  the  New  Testament;  axxtnxa, 
uertosaa,  and  others  which  are  found  in  no  Greek  writer 


384 


LETTERS  ON 


of  that  age."*  And  when  Dr.  Hammond  had  replied 
to  this  objection,  that  "  many  more  Latin  words  occur 
in  the  New  Testament  than  are  used  in  these  Epis- 
tles," Dr.  Owen  answered,  that  "there  is  scarce  one 
but  it  is  expressive  of  some  Roman  office,  custom, 
money,  order,  or  the  like:  words  which  pass  as  proper 
names  from  one  country  and  language  to  another,  or 
are  indeed  of  a  pure  Greek  original,  or  at  least  were 
in  common  use  in  that  age,  neither  of  which  can  be 
spoken  of  the  words  above  mentioned  used  in  the 
Epistles."  And  he  adds,  "  I  would  indeed  gladly  see 
a  fair,  candid,  and  ingenuous  defence  of  the  style  and 

*  "  Vocabula  Latina  quae  sec.  1.  et  2.  nemo  Graecus  seriptorum 
usurpavit,  sed  quae  dcmum  a  scriptoribus  Graecis,  sec.  7.  et  8.  usur- 
pari  coepta  sunt,  v.  c.  ifs^-rag,  pro  quo  scriptores  riorum  temporum 
omnes  dicunt  a.roa-axnc,  ut  etiam  dicitur  in  N.  T.  axKS/rA*,  i/etsj-sa*, 
et  alia,  quae  apud  nullum  scriptorem  Graecum  hujus  aevi  reperiun- 
tur." 

He  gives  the  following  brief  and  candid  account  of  the  different 
writers  who  have  taken  opposite  sides  in  the  controversy  about  these 
Epistles : 

"  Extitit  vero  etiam  authentiae  harum  epistolarum  defensor,  Pear- 
sonius,  Episcopus  Cestrensis,  qui  vindicias  earum  edidit,  imprimis 
contra  Blondellum.  Verum  etsi  hie  liber  bene  est  scriptus,  tainen 
rationes  ejus  non  sufficiunt.  Accessit  etiam  Hammondus  in  disserta- 
tionibus  tam  supra  laudatis  quas  imprimis  Blondello  opposuit.  Oudi- 
nus  in  Comment,  de  Script.  Eccles.,  torn.  i.  p.  86.  quo  etiam  inde  a 
pagina  89  usque  ad  142  contra  authentiam  harum  epistolarum  dis- 
putat.  Etiam  La  Roque  opusculum  dc  hac  re  scripsit,  contra  quern 
Bullus  scripsit  in  defensione  fidei  Nicenae."  (He  happens  to  omit 
Bishop  Beveridge.)  "Quod  autem  ad  controversiam  ipsam  attinet 
non  potest  negari  plerosque  viros  doctos  hac  in  coritroversi;i  cupidius 
esse  versatos.  Nam  Ejiiscopiilium  multum  intererat  authentiam 
harum  e/iistolarum  defendere,  ut  dignitatem  suam  iitque  ouctoritatem 
retinerent.  Prcsbyteriani  cupiditate  abrepti  saepe  argumcntis  earum 
authentiam  oppugnabant  quae  valere  non  possent;  quarn  ob  rem  ulra- 
que  pars  in  hac  disputatione  modum  excessit.  Sed  aliam  quoque  ob 
causam  nonnulli  coeperunt  authentium  harurn  epistolarum  simplici- 
ter  negare,  nempe,  quia  in  iis  insunt  diserta  testimonia  divinitatis 
Jesu  Christi.  Sociniani  vero  et  Ariani  divinitatem  Christi  ncgant, 
ideoque  has  epistolas  simpliciter  rejiciunt;  imprimis  cum  Zwickerus 
unus  ex  eorum  familia  contendisset  dogma  de  divinitate  Christi  esse 
novum,  tribus  prioribus  seculis  ignotum,  et  in  Concilio  Nicaeno  inven- 
tum.  Verum  ideo  nonnulli  de  orthodoxis  nimis  cupide  authentiam 
epistolarum  Ignatii  delenderunt,  nec  tam  incommoda  quam  potius 
utilitatern  hujus  defensionis  spectarunt,  in  quo  vehementer  errant. 
Nam  tali  in  re  defendenda  neque  utilitas  neque  incommoda  spectari 
debent,  sed  ut  Veritas  rei  postulat,  judicandum  est." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


3S5 


manner  of  writing  used  in  these  Epistles,  departing  so 
eminently  from  any  that  was  customary  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  men  of  those  daies;  for  truly,  notwithstand- 
ing any  thing  that  hitherto  I  have  been  able  to  obtaine 
for  help  in  this  kind,  I  am  enforced  to  incline  to  Vede- 
lius  his  answers  to  all  the  particular  instances  given 
of  this  nature,  (barbarisms,  rhyming  expressions,  &c.) 
this  and  that  place  is  corrupted:  this  is  from  Cleinens's 
Constitutions,  this  from  this  or  that  tradition;  which 
also  would  much  better  free  these  Epistles  from  the 
word  ctyijj,  used  in  the  sense  whereunto  it  was  applied 
by  the  Valentinians,  long  after  the  death  of  Ignatius, 
than  any  other  apologie,  I  have  as  yet  seen,  for  the 
securing  of  its  abode  in  them."*  But  if,  as  appears 
from  this  and  the  preceding  considerations,  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  these  Epistles  have  been  cor- 
rupted, it  destroys  at  once  every  thing  like  an  argu- 
ment, which  could  be  brought  from  their  statements, 
even  though  they  had  been  the  most  precise  and  ex- 
plicit, for  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

And,  in  short,  I  would  remark,  that  even  though 
we  should  waive  the  whole  of  these  objections,  and 
admit  that  these  Epistles  were  perfectly  genuine,  the 
power  which  they  ascribe  to  those  early  bishops  by 
no  means  corresponds  to  that  which  is  possessed  in 
the  present  day  by  diocesan  bishops.  Not  a  word  is 
mentioned  about  confirmation  or  ordination  ;  and  all 
that  is  said  of  their  ecclesiastical  authority  might  be 
affirmed  of  them  as  the  moderators  or  standing  pre- 
sidents of  the  presbyteries  of  the  Churches.  The 
Bishop  of  the  Magnesians  is  represented,  indeed,  in 
Archbishop  Wake's  translation,  as  the  governor  of 
that  Church ;  but  the  word  governor  is  not  in  the  ori- 
ginal. If  the  members  of  the  Churches  of  Philadelphia 
and  Smyrna  are  exhorted  to  have  "  a  due  regard  to 
the  bishop,  and  to  refresh  him,  and  attend  to  him," 
they  are  admonished  "  to  attend  also  to  the  presbyters 
and  to  the  deacons."  If  the  Trallians  are  urged  to 
reverence  the  bishop  as  God  the  Father,  they  are  told 

*  Preface  of  his  Treatise  on  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  p.  11. 
25 


3S6 


LETTERS  OX 


also  to  reverence  the  presbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of 
God,  and  the  College  of  the  Apostles,  his  highest 
ministers.  If  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna 
are  warned  to  "follow  the  bishop  as  Jesus  Christ, the 
Father,"  they  are  directed  to  "  follow  the  presbyters 
as  the  Apostles."  If  the  Ephesians  are  required  to  be 
subject  to  the  bishop,  the  same  subjection  is  demanded 
"  to  the  presbytery."  And  if  they  are  commanded  to 
"  obey  the  bishop,"  they  are  enjoined  to  yield  similar 
obedience  to  "the  presbytery  with  entire  affection." 
If  Sotio,  the  deacon  of  the  Magnesians,  is  represented 
as  "  subject  unto  his  bishop  as  the  grace  of  God,"  he  is 
said  to  be  "  subject  to  the  presbyters  as  to  the  law  of 
Jesus  Christ."  If  the  Trallians  are  described  as  "subject 
to  the  bishop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,"  they  are  exhorted  to 
be  "subject  also  to  the  presbyters  as  to  the  Apostles  of 
Jesus  Christ ;"  and  again,  as  they  were  to  be  "  subject 
to  their  bishop  as  to  the  command  of  God,  so  likewise 
to  the  presbyters."  And  while  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  Smyrna  are  admonished  in  the  Epistle  to 
Polycarp  to  "  submit  to  their  bishop,"  the  same  sub- 
mission is  required  to  the  presbyters.*  The  eccle- 
siastical court  of  these  Churches  is  uniformly  described 
by  a  reference  to  the  Sanhedrim,  for  it  is  expressly 
denominated  "the  Sanhedrim  of  God;"  and  as  the 
high-priest  was  merely  the  president  of  the  ancient 
Sanhedrim,  so  the  bishop  in  these  Churches  seems  to 
have  occupied  only  a  similar  place  in  the  presbytery; 
and  though  nothing  was  to  be  done  without  his  orders, 
as  the  head  and  representative  of  that  body,  yet  no 
passage  in  the  Epistles  ascribes  to  him  the  smallest 
portion  of  power  beyond  what  he  might  possess  as 
the  president  or  moderator  of  the  council  of  pres- 
byters. 

And  though  he  tells  the  Church  of  Tralles  that  they 
were  to  "do  nothing  without  their  bishop,"  and  the 
Church  of  Smyrna,  that  "it  was  not  lawful  without 
the  bishop,  either  to  baptize,  or  to  celebrate  the 

*  If  the  bishop  is  said  to  preside  over  the  Magnesians  in  the  place 
of  God,  the  presbyters  are  represented  in  the  very  same  paragraph 
as  "  presiding  over  them." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


387 


holy  communion,"  or,  as  others  render  the  word,  "  to 
make  a  love-feast,"  and  says  to  them,  "  Let  no  man 
do  any  thing  of  what  belongs  to  the  Church  separately 
from  the  bishop,"  yet  he  uses  similar  language  in  re- 
gard to  the  presbyters.  Thus,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Trallians,  he  says,  "  He  that  is  without,  that  is,  that 
does  any  thing  without  the  bishop,  and  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  is  not  pure  in  his  conscience."  And  he 
says  to  the  Magnesians,  "  Neither  do  ye  any  thing 
without  your  bishop  and  presbyters."  "  I  exhort  you 
that  you  study  to  do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord ; 
your  bishop  presiding  in  the  place  of  God;  your  pres- 
byters in  the  place  of  the  Council,"  or  "  Senate  of  the 
Apostles." — "  Let  there  be  nothing  that  may  be  able 
to  make  a  division  among  you  ;  but  be  ye  united  to 
your  bishop,  and  those  who  preside  over  you,  to  be 
your  pattern  and  direction  on  the  way  to  immor- 
tality." In  every  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  argu- 
ment brought  from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  for  diocesan 
Episcopacy  appears  to  me  to  fail ;  and  it  is  to  a  much 
later  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  that  you 
must  look  for  a  precedent  for  those  extraordinary 
powers  which  you  claim  for  your  bishops. 

I  would  only  further  remark,  that  the  primacy 
which  is  ascribed  to  the  Ignatian  bishop  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  strictest  equality  between  him  and 
the  presbyters,  as  in  the  case  not  only  of  the  president 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  which  is  referred  to  in  these  Epis- 
tles, but  of  the  presidents  of  other  courts;  for,  as  Cicero 
remarks  in  one  of  his  orations,  "  when  many  are  equal 
in  dignity,  one  only  can  occupy  the  first  place."* 
And  it  is  acknowledged  by  Whitaker,  that  "there  may 
be  primacy  where  there  is  no  dominion,  no  pre-emi- 
nence in  power,  no  prerogative  of  jurisdiction  or  au- 
thority."t  And  while  the  Ignatian  bishop  is  repre- 
sented as  teaching  or  preaching,  which,  according  to 

*  "  Quum  multi  pares  eli<;nitate  sint,  unus  tamen  primuin  locum 
solus  potest  obtincre."    Pro  Murcna. 

t  "Primatum  esse  posse  ubi  nullus  sit  dominalus,  nullum  im- 
perium,  nulla  omnino  jurisdictionis  aut  juris  praerogativa."  Con. 
trov.  4,  quaest.  2,  cap.  10. 


38S 


LETTERS  OX 


Hooper,  (Declaration  of  Christ  and  his  offices,  chap,  iii.) 
"  is  the  chief  eat  part  of  the  bishope's  office,  and  most 
diligently  and  streightly  commanded  by  God,"  though 
seldom  performed  by  your  bishops,  the  extent  of  his 
charge  bore  no  proportion  to  that  of  the  prelates  in 
your  National  Church.  It  would  appear  that  though 
there  might  be  several  congregations  in  Ephesus,  yet 
they  met  with  the  bishop  at  the  celebration  of  the 
communion,  and  received  it  along  with  him.  "  Let 
no  man,"  says  he  to  that  Church,  "  deceive  himself; 
if  a  man  be  not  within  the  altar,  he  is  deprived  of  the 
bread  of  God.  For  if  the  prayer  of  one  or  two  be  of 
such  force  as  we  are  told,  how  much  more  powerful 
shall  that  of  the  bishop  and  the  whole  Church  be. 
He  therefore  that  does  not  come  together  into  the 
same  place  with  it,  is  proud,  and  has  already  con- 
demned himself."  And  in  the  20th  paragraph  he  re- 
presents them  as  "  breaking  one  and  the  same  bread, 
which  is  the  medicine  of  immortality,"  along  with 
the  bishop  and  the  presbyters.  In  like  manner  he 
describes  the  Magnesians  as  "coming  together  into 
the  same  place"  with  the  bishop  and  presbyters, 
"  having  one  common  prayer,  one  supplication,  one 
mind,  one  hope,  in  charity  and  in  joy  undefiled." 
And  he  says  to  the  Church  in  Philadelphia,  "  Where- 
fore let  it  be  your  endeavour  to  partake  all  of  the  same 
holy  Eucharist,  for  there  is  but  one  flesh  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  one  cup  in  the  unity  of  his  blood; 
one  altar;  as  also  there  is  one  bishop,  together  with 
his  presbytery,  and  the  deacons,  my  fellow-servants; 
that  so,  whatever  ye  do,  ye  may  do  it  according  to  the 
will  of  God."  Does  this  resemble  the  charge  of  a 
modern  bishop?  Could  the  whole  of  the  communi- 
cants in  the  diocese  of  London,  or  Lincoln,  or  Dur- 
ham, or  even  Edinburgh  or  Glasgow,  meet  with  their 
respective  bishops  and  presbyters,  and  participate 
together  in  one  place  of  the  holy  Eucharist  ?  And 
amidst  all  that  you  say  of  the  superior  advantages 
which  are  possessed  by  the  members  of  Episcopalian 
Churches,  is  it  not  evident  from  this  fact,  that  they 
are  in  a  very  different  state  as  to  episcopal  superin- 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


389 


tendence  from  the  primitive  Churches,  even  in  the 
age  which  succeeded  that  of  the  Apostles  ? 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XXIII. 

No  allusion  to  the  powers  of  diocesan  bishops  in  the  writings  of  Hermas. — 
Nor  any  notire  of  such  ministers,  or  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism, 
or  of  confirmation,  by  Justin  Martyr. — No  reference  to  them  by  lrenaeus. 
w  ho  speaks  of  the  ministers  who  maintained  a  succession  of  sound  doc- 
trine from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  in  the  different  Churches,  alternately 
as  presbyters  and  bishops. — The  Churches  of  Gaul  describe  him  as  a  pres- 
byter, nine  years  after  he  was  a  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  Epislle  which 
they  sent  with  him  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  considering  it  as  the  most  hon- 
ourable name  winch  they  could  give  him. — lrenaeus  represents  Polycarp 
as  a  presbyter. — IS'osuch  powers  as  those  of  diocesan  bishops  ascribed  to 
bishops  in  ihe  writings  of  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  or  Tertullian,  or  Ori 
gen. — Examination  of  the  wrilings  of  Cyprian,  whose  language  respecting 
the  dignity  of  bishops,  is  frequently  extravagant. —  Proofs  of  his  erring 
grievously  on  other  subjects,  so  that  it  would  not  be  wonderful  if  he  had 
erred  also  on  this. — Evidence,  however,  even  from  his  Epistles  and  other 
writings  of  the  early  Christians,  that  presbyters  both  in  his  day,  and  for 
some  lime  afterw  ards,  could  not  only  ordain,  but  sit  in  councils  and  even 
preside  in  them. —  Passages  in  Cyprian's  writings  which  furnish  more 
plausible  arguments,  not  only  for  bishops,  but  lor  a  Pope,  than  any  which 
are  to  be  found  iu  the  preceding  Fathers. 

Reverend  Sir, — The  references  which  occur  in  the 
writings  of  Hermas,  usually  denominated  the  Shep- 
herd, to  the  orders  in  the  ministry,  are  so  vague  and 
general,  that  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  notice  them. 
In  his  second  vision  he  represents  the  old  woman  who 
appeared  to  him  as  inquiring  whether  "he  had  sent 
her  book  to  the  elders  of  the  Church,"  and  enjoining 
him  to  "write  two  books,  and  send  one  to  Clement, 
(who  is  commonly  understood  to  be  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,)  and  one  to  Grapte.  For  Clement  was  to  send 
it  to  foreign  cities,  because  it  was  permitted  him  so  to 
do ;  and  Grapte  was  to  admonish  the  widows  and 
orphans;  but  he  (Hermas)  was  to  read  in  that  city, 
(supposed  by  some  to  mean  Rome,)  with  the  elders  of 
•the  Church;"  from  which  it  would  seem  that  the  pres- 
byters or  elders  were  the  chief  ministers  of  the  Church. 
And  though  he  says  in  his  third  vision,  that  "the 
square  and  white  stones"  were,  as  he  informs  us,  "the 


390 


LETTERS  ON 


Apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  ministers ;" 
yet  it  is  evident  that  the  term  doctor  applies  to  the 
bishops,  and  refers  to  another  part  of  their  duty;  for 
in  his  ninth  similitude  he  mentions  only  two  orders  of 
ministers,  bishops  and  deacons,  as  placed  over  the 
Church,  as  its  ordinary  ministers,  and  consequently 
he  would  contradict  himself  if  the  term  doctors  in  his 
third  vision  represented  presbyters  as  distinct  from 
bishops.  "As  concerning  the  tenth  mountain,"'  says 
he  in  that  similitude,  "in  which  were  trees  that 
covered  the  cattle,  they  are  such  as  have  believed, 
certain  bishops,  that  is,  persons  set  over  the  Churches, 
(praesides  ecclesiarum,)  and  then  such  as  are  set 
over  the  services,  (praesides  ministeriorum,)  who 
have  protected  the  poor  and  widows."  And  while 
he  never  elsewhere,  as  far  as  I  have  discovered, 
speaks  of  Apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors,  and 
ministers,  he  repeatedly  speaks  of  Apostles  and  doc- 
tors, meaning  evidently  the  order  of  ministers,  who 
were  distinct  from  deacons.  Thus,  in  similitude  4, 
sect.  16,  it  is  said,  "  The  forty  stones  are  the  Apostles 
of  the  preaching  of  the  Son  of  God."  In  the  follow- 
ing section  they  are  said  to  mean  "  the  Apostles 
and  doctors  of  the  preaching  of  the  name  of  the  Son 
of  God."  And  in  section  25,  he  speaks  of  those  who 
"believed  the  Apostles,  and  certain  doctors  who  sin- 
cerely preached  the  word."  But  his  writings  through- 
out are  so  destitute  of  precision,  and  so  feeble  and 
puerile,  that  it  is  impossible  to  derive  from  them  any 
distinct  information  respecting  the  orders  in  the  mi- 
nistry in  the  early  Church. 

The  next  of  the  fathers  was  Justin  Martyr,  whose 
celebrated  Apology  for  the  primitive  Christians,  pre- 
sented to  Antoninus  Pius,  according  to  Page,  Basnage, 
and  Lardner,  in  139,  and  to  Blondel,  in  150,  contains 
the  following  account  of  the  ministers  and  worship  of 
the  Christian  Church:  "  We  bring  him  who  is  con- 
vinced, and  who  embraces  our  principles,  to  the  place 
where  the  brethren,  so  called,  are  assembled  for  com- 
mon prayers,  both  for  themselves,  the  illuminated 
(baptized")  individual,  and  all  others  every  where ; 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


391 


which  prayers  we  offer  with  earnest  desires  that  we 
may  be  accepted,  and  may  be  saved  with  an  everlast- 
ing salvation.  Prayers  being  ended,  we  salute  one 
another  with  a  holy  kiss.  Bread,  and  a  cup  of  water 
and  wine,  are  then  brought  to  the  president  of  the 
brethren,  (rt^oc^n;)  and  he  receiving  them,  gives 
praise  and  thanks  to  the  Father  of  all  things,  through 
the  name  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  con- 
tinues long  in  giving  thanks  that  we  are  thought 
worthy  of  these  blessings.  The  president  having 
given  thanks,  and  the  whole  people  having  expres- 
sed their  approbation,  those  who  are  called  among 
us  deacons,  (Siaxovoi,)  give  to  those  who  are  present 
bread  and  wine  mixed  with  water,  after  they  have 
been  consecrated  with  thanksgiving,  and  carry  them 
to  those  who  are  absent.  This  food  is  called  among 
us  the  Eucharist,  of  which  no  one  is  permitted  to  par- 
ticipate, unless  he  believes  those  things  to  be  true 
which  have  been  taught  by  us,  and  has  been  washed 
in  the  laver  that  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  rege- 
neration, and  so  lives  as  Christ  has  prescribed."* 

And  again,  he  observes,  "  Upon  Sunday,  all  those 
who  reside  in  cities  and  in  the  country  meet  together, 
and  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  are  read. 
And  the  reader  having  finished,  the  president  ad- 
dresses them,  and  exhorts  them  to  the  practice  of  those 
things  which  are  comely.  We  then  rise  and  unite,  in 
prayer.  And,  as  we  have  mentioned,  when  it  is 
finished,  bread  and  wine  mixed  with  water  are 
brought,  and  the  president  gives  thanks,  &c.  Those 
who  are  wealthy,  and  willing,  contribute  as  they  are 
severally  disposed ;  and  it  is  deposited  in  the  hands 
of  the  president,  who  assists  orphans,  widows,  those 
who  are  in  want  from  sickness  or  any  other  cause, 
those  who  are  in  bonds,  and  strangers  who  come  from 
other  places."!" 

If  this,  however,  was  a  faithful  description  of  the 
constitution  and  services  of  the  primitive  Church  in 

*  "  ETOTa  T^017<^SgeTa/  TU>  Tr^OtTTdlTI,"  &c. 

T  "  T»  tow  iAiov  Myiftivn  h/ai^x  tt&vtuv  7ro\w  H  ay^ov;  fjawnuii 

im  to  nun,"  &lc. 


392 


LETTERS  ON 


the  days  of  Justin,  it  does  not  present  the  faintest  re- 
semblance of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  either  in  the  orders 
of  its  clergy,  or  its  rites  and  ceremonies.  The  highest 
of  its  ministers  was  the  president  of  a  congregation 
which  met  for  worship  in  one  place,  either  in  the  cities 
or  in  the  country,  and  not  a  word  is  mentioned  of  his 
ruling  over  presbyters,  or  of  his  being  of  a  superior 
order.  Nor  is  there  the  slightest  reference  to  the  sign 
of  the  cross  in  baptism,  or  to  the  rite  of  confirmation, 
as  administered  by  the  hands  of  any  minister  before 
those  who  had  been  baptized,  were  admitted  to  the 
Eucharist.  It  follows,  of  course,  that  this  celebrated 
Apology,  though  presented  publicly  to  the  Roman 
Emperor,  and  capable  of  being  detected  as  to  all  its 
omissions,  kept  back  an  important  part  of  the  truth ; 
or  diocesan  bishops,  and  these  rites  and  ceremonies, 
did  not  then  exist.  Or,  at  all  events,  it  is  obvious, 
that  to  whomsoever  you  appeal  in  support  of  that 
order,  and  these  unwarrantable  additions  to  the  di- 
vine institutions,  it  cannot  be  to  Justin. 

Nor  is  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  the  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  whose  work  against  heresies,  according  to 
Baronius.  was  written  in  the  year  180,  and  according 
to  Blondel,  in  185,  at  all  more  favourable  to  diocesan 
Episcopacy.  He  speaks,  indeed,  in  some  passages  of 
the  orthodox  doctrine  having  been  preserved  in  the 
different  Churches  by  a  succession  of  orthodox  bishops 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles;  but  he  never  says 
that  they  were  invested  with  the  poivers  of  diocesan 
bishops,  nor  mentions  even  a  single  instance  in  which 
any  of  them  exercised  them.  And  yet,  till  this  is 
proved,  no  argument  can  be  deduced  in  support  of 
Episcopacy  from  his  denominating  them  bishops.  Be- 
sides, while  he  says  in  one  place  that  the  faith  was 
preserved  by  succession  of  bishops,  he  tells  us  in  an- 
other that  it  was  preserved  by  successions  of  pi-es- 
byters ;  plainly  intimating,  as  was  formerly  observed, 
that  he  considered  presbyters  as  bishops,  and  that  he 
looked  upon  the  presbyter,  who  was  called  bishop  by 
way  of  eminence,  as  nothing  more,  as  Hilary  says, 
than  the  president  or  moderator  of  the  council  of  pres- 


I 


I 

PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY.  393 

byters,  or  the  first  among  his  equals.  Thus,  while  he 
says,  (hook  iii.  ch.  3,)  "We  can  enumerate  those 
who  were  constituted  bishops  by  the  Apostles  in  the 
Churches,  and  their  successors,  even  to  us,  who  taught 
no  such  thing,"*  he  says,  (book  iii.  ch.  2,)  "  When  we 
challenge  them  (the  heretics)  to  that  apostolical  tra- 
dition which  is  preserved  in  the  Churches  through  the 
succession  of  the  presbyters,  they  oppose  the  tradi- 
tion, pretending  that  they  are  wiser  than  not  only 
the  presbyters,  but  the  Apostles  also."t  While  he 
says,  (book  iv.  ch.  53,)  "  True  knowledge  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostles,  according  to  the  succession  of 
bishops,  to  whom  they  delivered  the  Church  in  every 
place,  which  doctrine  has  reached  us,  preserved  in  its 
most  full  delivery,"  he  says  in  the  43d  chapter, 
"  Obey  those  presbyters  in  the  Church  who  hove 
succession,  as  ivc  have  shown,  from  the  Apostles, 
who,  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  received 
the  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of 
the  Father.''^  While  he  says,  (book  v.  ch.  20,) 
"  These  are  far  later  than  the  bishops,  to  whom  the 
Apostles  delivered  the  Churches ;  and  this  we  have 
carefully  made  manifest  in  the  third  book;"§  he  says, 
(book  iv.  ch.  44,)  "  We  ought  therefore  to  adhere  to 
those  presbyters  who  keep  the  Apostles' doctrine,  and 
together  with  the  order  of  the  presbyterate,  (cum 
ordine  presbyterii,)  show  forth  sound  speech.  Such 
presbyters  the  Church  nourishes;  and  of  such  the  pro- 
phet says,  I  will  give  them  princes  in  peace,  and 
bishops  in  righteousness."  While  in  his  3d  book,  ch.  3, 
he  says,  "  The  Apostles,  founding  and  instructing  that 
Church,  (the  Church  of  Rome,)  delivered  to  Linus  the 

*  "  Et  liabemus  annumcrare  eos  qui  ab  Apostolis  instituti  sunt 
cpiscopi,"  &c. 

t  "Cum  autem  ad  earn  iterum  traditioncm,  quae  est  ab  Apostolis, 
quae  per  successiones  presbyterorum  in  ecclesiis  custoditur  provo. 
camus  eos,"  <Xic. 

t  "Quapropter  cisqui  in  ccclesia  sunt  presbyteris  obaudire  oportet, 
bis  qui  successionem  habent  ab  Apostolis,  sicut  osteridimus,  qui  cum 
episcopates  successione,  charisma  veritatis  certum,"  &c. 

§  "  Omncs  enim  ii  valde  posteriores  sunt  quain  episcopi,  quibus 
Apostoli  tradidcrunt  ccclcsias." 


394 


LETTERS  ON 


episcopate  ;  Anacletus  succeeded  him;  after  him  Cle- 
mens obtained  the  episcopate  from  the  Apostles;  to 
Clement  succeeded  Evaristus ;  to  him,  Alexander ; 
then  Xystus;  and  after  him  Telesphorus ;  then  Hy- 
ginus;  after  him  Pius;  then  Anicetus :  and  Avhen 
Soter  had  succeeded  Anicetus,  then  Eleutherius  had 
the  episcopate  in  the  twelfth  place ;"  in  his  Epistle  to 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  represents  the  whole  of 
them,  as  well  as  Victor  himself,  as  presbyters.  "  Those 
presbyters,  (in  the  Church  of  Rome,)  before  Soter," 
says  he,  "who  governed  the  Church  which  thou  now 
governest,  I  mean  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Teles- 
phorus, and  Xystus,  they  did  not  observe  it,  («.  e.  the 
day  on  which  Victor  observed  Easter.)  And  those 
presbyters  ivho  preceded  yon,  though  they  did  not  ob- 
serve it  themselves,  yet  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those 
(presbyters)  of  other  Churches  who  did  observe  it. 
And  when  blessed  Polycarp,  in  the  days  of  Anicetus, 
came  to  Rome,  he  did  not  much  persuade  Anicetus  to 
observe  it,  as  he  (i.  e.  Anicetus)  declared  that  the  custom 
of  the  presbyters  ivho  ivere  his  predecessors  should  be 
retained."*  Unless,  therefore,  you  maintain  that 
Irenaeus  did  not  know  how  to  express  his  sentiments, 
and  that  his  language  is  destitute  of  every  thing  like 
precision,  I  consider  it  to  be  plain,  from  a  comparison 
of  those  passages,  that  he  looked  upon  the  bishops 
who  succeeded  the  Apostles  in  the  different  Churches, 
till  the  age  in  which  he  wrote,  merely  as  presbyters ; 
or  if  there  was  any  difference  between  them  and  the 
rest  of  the  presbyters,  it  was  that  merely  of  those  who 
were  the  moderators  or  presidents  of  the  councils  of 
presbyters  in  the  several  Churches. 

And  this  was  not  the  opinion  of  Irenaeus  only,  but 
of  the  Churches  of  Gaul ;  for  when  they  sent  him, 
nine  years  after  he  was  bishop  of  Lyons,  to  Eleutherius 
of  Rome,  and  gave  him  a  recommendatory  letter  to  that 
Prelate,  the  highest  title  which  they  bestowed  on  him 
was  that  of  "  a  presbyter  of  the  Church,  jte.topvtte.ov 
"  and  the  terms  in  which  the  presbyters 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v.  cap.  24. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


395 


spoke  of  him  were,  that  he  was  "  their  brother  and 
colleague."*  Upon  which  Stillingfleet  remarks,  "  that 
it  seems  very  improbable,  that  when  they  were  com- 
mending one  to  the  bishop  of  another  Church,  they 
should  make  use  of  the  lowest  name  of  honour,  then 
appropriated  to  subject  presbyters,  which  instead  of 
commending,  were  a  great  debasing  of  him,  if  they 
had  looked  on  a  superior  order  above  those  presbyters 
as  of  divine  institution,  and  thought  there  had  been 
so  great  a  distance  between  a  bishop  and  subject 
presbyters  as  we  are  made  to  believe  there  was: 
which  is,  as  if  the  master  of  a  college  in  one  univer- 
sity should  be  sent  by  the  fellows  of  his  society  to  the 
heads  of  the  other,  and  should,  in  his  commendatory 
letters  to  them,  be  styled  a  senior  fellow  of  that  house. 
Would  not  any  one  that  read  this  imagine  that  there 
was  no  difference  between  a  senior  fellow  and  a 
master,  but  only  a  primacy  of  order;  that  he  was  the 
first  of  the  number  without  any  power  over  the  rest? 
This  was  the  case  of  Irenacus.  He  is  supposed  to  be 
Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Lyons, — he  is  sent  by  the 
Church  of  Lyons  on  a  message  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
when,  notwithstanding  his  being  a  bishop,  they  call 
him  presb'ytef  of  that  Church,  (when  there  were 
other  presbyters  who  were  not  bishops;)  what  conld 
any  one  imagine  by  the  reading  of  it,  but  that  the 
bishop  was  nothing  else  but  their  senior  presbyter,  or 
one  that  had  a  primacy  of  order  among,  but  no  di- 
vine right  to  a  power  of  jurisdiction  over  his  fellow 
presbyters?'^  And  the  same,  too,  were  the  views 
which  were  entertained  by  Irenacus  of  the  rank  of 
Polycarp,  whom  Episcopalians  represent  as  a  diocesan 
bishop;  for  after  telling  Florinus,  whose  heretical 
opinion  he  had  been  condemning,  "  this  doctrine,  such 
as  were  presbyters  before  us,  {n^afivtteoi.  ire,o  t/iov,) 
and  disciples  of  the  Apostles,  never  delivered  unto 
thee;"  and  after  referring  to  Polycarp,  lie  adds,  "I 
am  able  to  testify  before  God,  that  if  that  holy  and 
(!])ostolical presbyter  (artogouxo;  7te.tafiv?ie,o<;)  had  heard 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv.  cap.  5,  who  quotes  the  Epistle, 
t  Irenicuiii,  p.  311,  312. 


396 


LETTERS  ON 


any  such  thing,  he  would  at  once  have  reclaimed  and 
stopped  his  ears,  and  after  his  manner  cried  out,  Good 
God!  to  what  times  hast  thou  reserved  me?"*  But 
if  the  highest  rank  which  he  assigns  to  Polycarp  was 
that  of  a  presbyter,  and  if  the  highest  title  which  was 
given  to  himself  by  the  presbyters  of  Lyons,  in  their 
commendatory  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  the 
name  of"  a  presbyter  of  their  Church,  and  their  brother 
and  colleague,"  you  will  appeal  in  vain  to  him  or  to 
them  to  show  that  at  that  time  diocesan  bishops,  or  an 
order  of  ministers  superior  to  presbyters,  existed  in 
the  Church. 

The  reference  to  the  different  orders  in  the  ministry 
in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  which  were 
published  either  in  the  end  of  the  second  or  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century,  are  so  few  and  indistinct, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  his  opinion.  You  meet, 
indeed,  with  one  passage,  (Stromata,  lib.  vi.)  where 
he  mentions  the  three  names  of  bishops,  presbyters 
and  deacons ;  and  with  another  in  his  Paedagogus, 
(lib.  iii.  cap.  12,  p.  194,)  where  he  puts  presbyters  be- 
fore bishops,  and  says,  "very  many  commands  relative 
to  particular  persons  are  written  in  the  sacred  books, 
some  to  presbyters,  some  to  bishops,  some  to  deacons, 
and  some  to  widows."  But  he  never  points  out  the  dif- 
ference between  bishops  and  presbyters,  nor  represents 
the  former  as  possessing  exclusively  the  powers  of  or- 
dination, confirmation,  and  government,  like  modern 
bishops,  nor  says  even  a  word  from  which  it  can  be 
inferred  that  they  were  any  thing  but  the  standing 
moderators  or  presidents  of  the  councils  of  presbyters. 
On  the  contrary,  he  represents  himself,  though  he  was 
only  a  presbyter,  and  all  who  were  pastors,  as  govern- 
ing the  Churches;  for,  says  he,  (Paedag.  lib.  i,  p.  120.) 
"  If  we  who  bear  rule  over  the  Churches  are  shep- 
herds or  pastors  after  the  image  of  the  Good  Shep- 
herd," Sac.  And  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  same 
book,  (p.  1S2,)  he  tells  us  that  presbyters  gave  impo- 
sition of  hands,  whether  for  confirmation  or  mere  bene- 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  v.  cap.  20. 


FUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


397 


diction  does  not  appear;  for,  says  he,  "  On  whom  does 
the  presbyter  lay  his  hand,  (tih  yae  rt^i afivTeeo;  tTtitieqit 
x^ea,  &c.)  whom  does  he  bless?"  He  says,  (Strom, 
lib  hi.)  that  Paul  declares  it  "to  be  necessary,  that 
those  should  be  appointed  bishops,  who,  from  ruling 
their  own  house,  were  prepared  for  ruling  the  whole 
Church ;"  but  he  never  specifies  the  extent  of  their 
powers;  and  though  he  speaks,  (Strom,  lib.  vi.)  of 
"a  presbyter,  who,  though  a  righteous  man,  had  not 
attained  the  chief  seat  on  earth,  (rtgoxaflfSgta,")  yet 
there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  any  thing  but  the  seat 
of  the  president,  or  moderator  of  the  presbyters.  Nay, 
as  far  as  we  can  discover  his  sentiments,  he  appears 
to  have  thought  there  were  only  two  orders,  presby- 
ters or  bishops,  and  deacons.  Thus,  in  the  third  book 
of  his  Stromata,  after  quoting  the  words  of  Paul  in 
1  Tim.  v.  14,  15,  he  adds,  "  But  he  must  be  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife  only,  whether  he  be  a  presbyter,  or 
deacon,  or  layman,  if  he  would  use  matrimony  with- 
out blame."  And  in  book  seventh,  he  says,  "Of  that 
service  of  God,  about  which  men  are  employed,  one 
is  that  which  makes  them  better,  (^exn^ttx^) ;  the 
other,  that  which  is  ministerial,  (tm^tui;.)  Pres- 
byters maintain  th  at  form  of  service  in  the  Church 
which  makes  men  better;  deacons  that  form  which  is 
ministerial.  In  both  these  ministries  the  angels,  as 
well  as  he  who  is  endowed  with  knowledge,  serve 
God,  according  to  the  dispensation  of  earthly  things." 
Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this,  that  he  says  in  the 
sixth  book  of  his  Stromata,  as  Episcopalians  have 
often  asserted,  "  Now,  in  the  Church  here,  the  pro- 
gressions (rt^oxortaj)  of  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons, 
I  think  are  imitations  of  the  angelical  glory,  and  of 
that  dispensation  which  the  Scriptures  declare  they 
look  for  who  have  lived  according  to  the  Gospel  in 
the  perfection  of  righteousness,  walking  in  the  steps 
of  the  Apostle.  These  men,  the  Apostle  writes,  being 
taken  up  into  the  clouds,  shall  first  serve  as  deacons, 
and  shall  then  be  admitted  among  the  presbyters,  ac- 
cording to  the  progression  in  glory."  If  he  con- 
sidered the  progressions  among  the  ministers  of  the 


398 


LETTERS  ON 


Church  in  the  present  world,  as  imitations  of  the  two 
degrees  of  glory  which  shall  be  bestowed  upon  the 
angels  in  heaven,  corresponding  either  to  the  higher 
services  which  they  rendered  to  men  upon  earth,  (as 
he  says,  book  vii.)  resembling  those  of  presbyters,  or 
to  the  lower  services,  resembling  those  of  deacons, 
then  it  is  plain  that  he  must  have  looked  upon  these 
progressions  among  the  ministers  of  the  Church  in 
this  world  as  extending  merely  to  the  two  offices  of 
presbyters  and  deacons,  the  discharge  of  which  led  to 
the  performance  of  these  two  kinds  of  service,  which 
were  copied  by  the  angels.  And  as  he  does  not  speak 
of  a  third  kind  of  service,  or  that  of  diocesan  bishops, 
something  like  to  which  was  rendered  by  the  angels, 
it  is  evident  that  he  could  not  intend  to  represent  these 
prelates  as  a  third  order  or  progression  in  the  Church 
on  earth.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  he 
describes  the  faithful  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  after 
they  are  caught  up  together  in  the  clouds,  as  minis 
tering  first  only  as  deacons  in  the  heavenly  temple 
and  then  promoted  to  be  presbyters,  after  which  they 
never  rise  to  any  higher  order ;  for  if  he  regarded 
presbyters  as  the  principal  order  in  the  Church  in 
heaven,  he  must  undoubtedly  have  looked  upon  them, 
as  far  as  we  can  judge,  as  the  principal  order  in  the 
Church  on  earth. 

Little  occurs  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian  bearing 
on  the  question.  In  his  work  against  the  heretics,  he 
appeals  to  the  successions  of  bishops  in  the  different 
churches,  from  the  age  of  the  Apostles  till  his  own 
day,  in  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  which  was 
taught  in  the  orthodox  churches;  but  he  does  not  spe- 
cify the  powers  ivhich  were  exercised  by  these  bishops, 
so  as  to  enable  us  to  judge  whether  they  were  of  a 
superior  order  to  presbyters.  And  the  following  is 
the  account  which  he  gives  of  the  rulers  of  the  Church 
in  the  end  of  the  second  century:  "  In  the  Church," 
says  he,  in  his  Apology  for  the  Christians,  (and  I  quote 
his  words,  as  they  are  translated  by  Usher  in  his  Re- 
duced Scheme  of  Episcopacy,  that  I  may  not  be  sus- 
pected of  giving  a  turn  to  the  passage  to  favour  my 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


399 


own  views,)  "are  used  exhortations,  chastisements 
and  divine  censure;  for  judgment  is  given  with  great 
advice,  as  among  those  who  are  certain  they  are  in 
the  sight  of  God;  and  in  it  is  the  chiefest  foreshowing 
of  the  judgment  which  is  to  come,  if  any  man  have 
so  offended  that  he  is  banished  from  the  communion 
of  prayer,  and  of  the  assembly,  and  of  all  holy  fellow- 
ship. The  presidents  that  bear  rule  therein  are  cer- 
tain approved  elders"  or  presbyters,  "  who  have  ob- 
tained this  honour,  not  by  reward,  but  by  good  re- 
port;"* "  who  were  no  other,"  says  the  Archbishop, 
"as  he  intimates  elsewhere,  (de  Corona  Militis,  cap. 
3,)  but  those  from  whose  hands  they  used  to  receive 
the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist."  But  if  these  presi- 
dents were  seniors  or  presbyters,  who  were  pastors  of 
churches,  and  administered  the  communion  to  their 
members,  and  if  he  never  mentions  any  order  above 
them,  though  he  denominates  their  moderator  or 
chairman  "  the  chief  priest,"  who  first  had  authority 
to  baptize  for  the  honour  of  the.  Church,  and  after 
him  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  (de  Baptismo,  cap. 
17,)  you  will  look  in  vain  also  to  him  for  support  to 
the  cause  of  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

The  view  which  is  presented  of  the  orders  in  the 
ministry  in  the  writings  of  Origen,  who  flourished  to- 
wards the  middle  of  the  third  century,  are  by  no  means 
clear.  Sometimes  he  speaks  as  if  there  were  only 
two  orders,  that  of  the  presbyters  or  priest,  and  that 
of  the  deacons,  whom  he  compares  to  the  Levites. 
Thus,  in  his  second  Homily  on  Numbers,  (torn.  ii.  p. 
203,)  he  says,  "  Let  a  man  walk  according  to  his  or- 
der. Do  you  think  that  those  who  are  appointed  to 
the  office  of  the  priesthood,  and  who  glory  in  the 
order  of  the  priesthood,  walk  according  to  their  order, 
and  do  all  things  which  are  worthy  of  that  order? 
And  in  like  manner,  do  you  think  that  the  dea- 
cons walk  according  to  the  order  of  their  ministry? 
Whence,  then,  is  it  that  you  often  hear  men  speaking 
ill  of  them,  and  saying,  See  what  a  bishop,  or  what  a 
presbyter,  or  what  a  deacon!  Are  not  these  things 

*  Apology,  cap.  39. 


400 


LETTERS  ON 


said,  when  a  priest  or  a  minister  of  God  is  seen  to  be- 
have in  a  way  which  is  contrary  to  his  order,  and  to 
perform  any  thing  unworthy  of  the  priestly  or  leviti- 
cal  order?"*  where  he  evidently  represents  priests  or 
presbyters  and  bishops  as  belonging  to  the  same  or- 
der. And  he  says  again  in  his  fourth  Homily  on 
Joshua,  (torn.  i.  p.  327,)  "  The  priestly  and  levitical 
order  is  that  which  stands  near  the  ark  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Lord,  in  which  the  law  of  God  is  carried ; 
and  they  enlighten  the  people  respecting  the  com- 
mands of  God,  as  the  prophet  says,  Thy  word  is  a 
lamp  to  my  feet,  and  a  light  to  my  paths.  This  light 
is  kindled  by  the  priests  and  Levites."t  And  yet  he 
mentions  in  other  passages  bishops,  presbyters  and 
deacons,  as  in  his  sixth  Homily  on  Isaiah,  (torn.  i.  p. 
635,)  where  he  says,  "  No  deacon,  or  presbyter,  or 
bishop,  taking  a  linen  cloth,  washes  the  feet  of  those 
who  come  to  him. "J    And  he  refers  to  them  else- 

*  "  Homo  ergo  secundum  ordinem  suum  incedat.  Putasne  qui 
sacerdotio  funguntur,  et  in  sacerdotali  ordine  gloriantur,"  &c. 

t  "  Sacerdotalis  et  Leviticus  ordo  est  qui  assistit  arcae  testamcnti 
Domini,  in  qua  lex  Dei  portatur,"  &.c. 

t  "  Nemo  enim  quibuscunque  venientibus  assumens  linteum,  dia- 
conus,  vel  presbyter,  sive  episcopus  lavat  pedes." 

He  says  indeed,  in  his  fifth  Homily  on  Ezekiel,  torn.  i.  p.  715, 
"  Those  who  are  connected  with  the  Church,  and  who  have  tasted 
of  the  word  of  God  and  transgress  it,  deserve  to  be  punished;  but  it 
ought  to  be  according  to  their  different  degrees  in  the  Church.  He 
who  presides  over  the  Church,  and  sins,  must  be  visited  with  heavier 
punishment.  A  catechumen  deserves  more  clemency  than  one  of  the 
faithful,  a  laic  than  a  deacon,  and  a  deacon  than  a  presbyter.  Omncs 
enim  qui  in  ecclesia  peccatores  sunt,  qui  scrmonem  Dei  gustaverunt, 
merentur  quidem  supplicia,"  &.c.  But  still  the  language  is  general, 
and  conveys  no  definite  idea  of  the  powers  of  the  president;  and  does 
not  even  enable  us  to  judge  whether  he  was  more  than  the  president, 
if  not  of  a  congregation,  at  least  of  a  council  of  presbyters. 

He  says,  too,  when  interpreting  the  word  "  Kycu/uita,  chief,  in 
Luke  xxii.  26,"  so  I  think  he  may  be  termed,  who,  "in  the  Church, 
is  called  bishop."  But  what  the  powers  of  that  minister  were  he 
does  not  say ;  and  sometimes  he  represents  even  a  whole  church  as 
meeting  in  a  private  house.  Thus,  he  says  of  Gaius,  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  Romans  xvi.  23,  that  he  was  "  a  hospitable  man,  who  not 
only  received  Paul  and  other  Christians  to  share  of  his  kindness,  but 
afforded  to  the  whole  Church  a  place  of  meeting  in  his  house.  Eccle- 
siae  universae  in  domo  sua  conventiculum  ipse  praebuerit."  He  says, 
too,  "  If  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  subject  to  Joseph  and  Mary, 
shall  not  I  be  subject  to  the  bishop,  who  of  God  is  ordained  to  be  my 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


401 


where  in  his  eleventh  Homily  on  Jeremiah,  (torn.  i. 
p.  679,)  and  eighth  on  Ezekiel,  p.  726;  as  well  as  in 
his  Homilies  on  Matt.  xv.  19,  (torn.  ii.  p.  29  and  88.) 
But  whether  bishops  differed  from  presbyters  any 
further  than  the  first  among  equals,  primi  inter  pares, 
and  what  was  the  extent  of  their  powers,  if  they  were 
of  a  superior  order,  I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain. 

I  intended  to  have  examined  at  considerable  length 
the  different  statements  respecting  the  office  of  bishops 
which  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  who  flourished  from  A.  d.  248  to 
a.  d.  260;  but  as  my  remarks  on  the  works  of  the 
preceding  fathers  have  exceeded  the  limits  within 
which  I  had  hoped  to  restrict  them,  I  must  do  it  at 

father  ?  Shall  not  I  be  subject  to  the  presbyter,  who  by  the  divine 
appointment  is  set  over  me?"  But  it  is  evident  from  what  he  says 
in  his  third  book  against  Celsus,  who  had  represented  the  Christians 
as  excluding  from  their  communion  all  learned  and  prudent  men, 
that  he  understood  by  a  bishop,  a  pastor  or  teacher.  "  It  is  evident," 
says  he,  "  that  Paul,  in  his  account  of  those  whom  he  calls  bishops, 
describing  what  manner  of  man  a  bishop  ought  to  be,  requires  that 
he  must  be.  a  teacher,  saying,  that  a  bishop  must  be  able  to  convince 
the  gainsayers,  to  the  end  that  by  his  wisdom  he  may  stop  the  mouths 
of  vain  talkers  and  seducers.  And  as  he  prefers  in  his  choice  of  a 
bishop  one  who  is  the  husband  of  one  wife,  before  him  who  has  mar- 
ried a  second  time,  and  one  who  is  blameless  before  him  that  is  faulty, 
and  a  vigilant  man  before  him  that  is  not  so,  and  a  sober  man  before 
one  who  is  not  sober,  and  a  modest  man  before  a  less  modest,  so  he 
wills  that  a  bishop  duly  constituted  be  apt  to  teach,  and  able  to  con- 
vince the  gainsayers."  And  though  he  says,  "there  is  a  debt  pecu- 
liar to  widows  maintained  by  the  Church,  a  debt  peculiar  to  deacons, 
and  another  peculiar  to  presbyters;  but  of  all  these  peculiar  debts, 
that  which  is  due  by  the  bishop  is  the  greatest.  It  is  exacted  by  the 
Saviour  of  the  whole  Church,  and  the  bishop  must  smart  severely 
for  it  if  it  is  not  paid;"  yet  Jamieson,  in  his  Cyprianus  Isotimus, 
remarks  upon  it,  p.  410,  "as  ifOrigen  could  not  judge,  that  he  to 
whom  the  Church  had  committed  the  chief  care  of  affairs  was  to 
account  to  God  for  more  than  were  others.  Might  not  the  ancients 
think  that  the  archdeacon  was  accountable  for  more  than  were  the 
rest?  Did  they  therefore  believe  that  he,  as  contradistinguished 
from  other  deacons,  was  of  divine  institution?  .Now,  that  there  was 
pretty  early  an  archdeacon,  who  had  a  power  over  the  other  dea- 
cons, appears  plain  from  Hicrome's  Epistle  to  Evagrius;  and  this  he 
never  doubted  to  be  either  lawful  or  expedient."  To  what  extent, 
however,  the  power  of  the  bishop  was  superior  to  that  of  the  presby- 
ters, or  the  power  of  the  archdeacon  to  that  of  the  deacons,  does  not 
appear. 

26 


402 


LETTERS  OX 


present  more  briefly.  And  here  I  would  observe,  that 
the  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of  it  are  certainly  more 
lofty  than  those  which  were  employed  by  any  of  his 
predecessors;  for  even  Milner,  who,  I  think,  deline- 
ates his  character  too  favourably,  and  extenuates  his 
faults,  is  forced  to  acknowledge,  that  "  there  are  some 
expressions  savouring  of  haughtiness  and  asperity  to 
be  found  in  his  writings:  and  that  the  episcopal  autho- 
rity, through  the  gradual  growth  of  superstition,  was 
naturally  advancing  to  an  excess  of  dignity."*  He 
speaks,  for  instance,  of  the  episcopal  office  as  "  the 
lofty  summit  of  the  priesthood  :t  (though  no  such  ex- 
pressions are  applied  in  Scripture  even  to  the  office  of 
an  Apostle:)  of  the  vigour  of  the  episcopate,  and  the 
sublime  and  divine  power  of  governing  the  Church  ;"± 
of  "the  honour  of  the  bishop, §  and  of  the  honour  of 
his  priesthood  and  chair  :"||  and  he  orders  a  deacon 
who  had  offended  his  bishop  to  "  honour  him,  and 
with  full  humility  or  prostration,  to  make  satisfaction 
to  him;"*"  while  the  Roman  clergy,  in  their  letter  to 
Cyprian,  say  that  it  was  time  that  the  lapsed,  "  by 
rendering  the  honour  which  was  due  to  the  priest 
of  God,  should  obtain  for  themselves  the  divine 
mercy.""*  Nay,  he  represents  bishops  as  the  succes- 
sors of  the  ApostIes,tt  and  says,  that  u  through  the 
courses  of  times  and  successions  the  ordination  of 

*  Milner's  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  457. 

t  "  Sacerdotii  sublime  fastigium."    Epist.  52. 

t  "  Actum  est  de  episcopatus  vigore,  et  de  Ecclesiae  gubernandse 
sublimi  et  divina  potestate."    Epist.  55. 

§  "  Nec  honorem  episcopi  cogitantes,"    Epist.  11. 

||  "  Nec  episcopo  honorem  sacerdotii  sui  el  cathedrae  reservantes." 
Epist.  12. 

T  "  Honorem  sacerdotis  agnoscere,  et  episcopo  praposito  suo  plena 
humilitate  satisfacere."    Epist.  65. 

»*  "  De  honore  debito  in  Dei  sacerdotem  eliciant  in  se  divinam 
misericnrdiam."  Epist  30.  In  his  filly  eighth  Epistle,  he  represents 
presbyters  as  united  with  the  bishop  in  the  honour  of  the  priesthood, 
but  what  their  portion  of  it  was  he  does  not  say.  "  Qui  cum  episco- 
po presbvteri  sacerdotali  honore  conjuncti." 

ft-  "  Haec  enim,"  he  observes  to  Cornelius  in  his  forty-second  Epis- 
tle, "  vel  majtime  frater  et  laboramus,  et  laborare  debemus,  ut  unita- 
tem  a  Domino  et  per  Apostolos  nobis  successoribus  traditam,  quan- 
tum possumus,  obtinere  curemus." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


403 


bishops,  and  the  order  of  the  Church,  descends  to  us, 
so  that  the  Church  is  constituted  upon  the  bishops, 
and  every  act  of  the  Church  is  regulated  by  the  same 
rulers;  that  the  Church  is  constituted  on  the  bishop 
and  clergy,  and  all  who  stand  steadfast  in  their  Chris- 
tian profession;"*  that  "  the  bishop  is  in  the  Church, 
and  the  Church  in  the  bishop;  and  that  if  any  one  is 
not  in  the  bishop,  he  is  not  in  the  Church."t  And 
while  such  is  the  place  which  is  assigned  to  bishops, 
he  tells  us  at  the  same  time  that  the  Church  is  found- 
ed on  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  has  only  one  ruler;  and 
makes  use  of  expressions,  on  which  the  Papists  found 
very  plausible  arguments  for  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  as  the  successor  of  Peter,  and  the  one  universal 
bishop,  of  which  there  is  no  example  in  the  earlier 
fathers.  Thus,  in  his  seventieth  Epistle,  he  says, 
"  There  is  one  Church  founded  by  Christ  the  Lord, 
the  origin  and  principle  of  unity,  upon  Peter.":):  And 
again,  in  his  seventy-third  Epistle,  "  The  Church, 
which  is  one,  is,  by  the  declaration  of  the  Lord,  found- 
ed also  upon  one  who  received  its  keys."§  Justly, 
therefore,  might  Whitaker  say  of  Episcopacy,  which 
had  been  adopted  as  a  preventive  of  schism,  (and 
Heylin  observes,  that  he  was  a  zealous  defender  of 
your  Church  against  Cartwright,)  that  "  the  remedy 
was  well  nigh  worse  than  the  disease  itself;  for,  as 
at  the  first,  one  presbyter  was  set  over  the  rest  of  the 
presbyters,  and  made  a  bishop ;  so  afterwards,  one 
bishop  was  set  over  the  rest  of  the  bishops.  Thus, 
that  custom  hatched  the  Pope  with  his  monarchy, 
and  by  degrees  brought  him  into  the  Church."  Nor 
will  these  extravagant  expressions  about  the  power 

*  "  Inde  per  temporum  ct  successionum  vices  episcoporum  ordi- 
natio,  et  Ecclesiw  ratio  decurrit,  ut  Ecclesia  super  episcopos  consti- 
tuatur,  et  omnis  actus  Ecclesia;  per  cosdem  prtepositos  gubemetur. 
Ecclesia  in  cpiscopo  et  clero,  ct  in  omnibus  stantibus  sit  constiluta." 
Epist.  27. 

t  "  Episcopum  in  Ecclesia  esse,  et  Ecclesiam  in  cpiscopo,  et  si 
quis  cum  episcopo  non  sit,  in  Ecclesia  non  esse."    Epist.  G'J. 

t  "  Una  Ecclesia  aChristo  Domino  super  Petrum  origine  unitatis 
et  ratione  fundata." 

§  "  Qua*  una  est,  et  supra  unum  qui  et  claves  ejus  accepit,  Domi- 
ni voce  l'undata  est." 


404 


LETTERS  ON 


and  dignity  of  bishops  appear  at  all  wonderful,  when 
you  consider  what  erroneous  sentiments  he  express- 
ed on  other  subjects,  and  what  corruptions  he  sanc- 
tioned in  the  early  Church.  He  states  it,  for  instance, 
to  have  been  his  own  opinion,  and  that  of  a  council 
of  sixty-six  bishops,  at  which  he  was  present,  that 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  essential  to  their  salvation ; 
for,  says  he, "  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy 
the  souls  of  men,  but  to  save  them,  as  far  as  depends 
on  us,  if  it  (salvation)  can  be  procured  for  them,  (in- 
fants,) no  soul  ought  to  be  lost."*  He  thought,  that 
while  the  blood  of  Christ  obtained  for  men  the  par- 
don of  the  sins  which  they  had  committed  before  bap- 
tism, almsgiving  procured  for  them  the  forgiveness  of 
those  sins  which  they  committed  after  baptism,  and 
delivered  them  from  eternal  death.  "  Almsgiving," 
says  he,  (and  this  is  overlooked  by  Milner,  in  his 
laudatory  account  of  Cyprian,)  "frees  from  death;  not 
that  death,  our  liability  to  which  the  blood  of  Christ 
once  abolished,  and  from  which  the  grace  of  baptism 
and  of  our  Redeemer  has  rescued  us,  but  from  that 
which  has  crept  upon  us  afterwards  through  our 
sins."t  He  approved  of  unction  after  baptism;  for, 
says  he  in  his  seventieth  Epistle,  "  it  is  necessary  that 
he  who  is  baptized  should  be  anointed,  that  having 
received  chrism,  he  may  become  by  unction  the 
anointed  of  God,  and  have  the  grace  of  Christ  in  him- 
self."! He  represents  those  who  were  baptized  as 
brought  afterivards  to  the  bishop,  that  they  might 
receive,  through  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  might  be  perfected  by  his  making  on  them 
the  sign  of  the  cross.§    He  thought  that  the  cup  in 

*  "  Quantum  in  nobis  est,  si  fieri  potest,  nulla  anima  est  perdenda." 
Epist.  59. 

t  "  Eleemosyna  a  morte  liberat,  et  non  utique  ab  ilia  morte  quam 
semel  Christi  sanguis  extinxit,  et  aqua  nos  salutaris  baptismi,  et  Re- 
demptoris  nostri  gratia  liberavit,  scd  ab  ea,  quag  per  delicta  post  mo- 
dum  serpsit."   Epist.  52. 

X  "  Ungi  quoque  necesse  est  eum  qui  baptizatus  sit  ut  aecepto 
chrismate,  id  est,  unctione,  esse  unctus  Dei,  et  habere  in  se  gratiam 
Christi  possit." 

§  "  Quod  nunc  quoque  apud  nos  geritur,  ut  qui  in  ecclesia  bapti- 
zantur  priepositis  ecclesise  offerantur,  ct  per  nostram  orationem  ac 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


405 


the  Eucharist  should  contain  wine  and  water;  for, 
says  he,  "  the  cup  of  the  Lord  is  not  water  only,  or 
wine,  only,  but  both  must  be  mingled,  just  as  it  is  not 
the  Lord's  body,  if  it  is  flour  only,  or  water  only,  but 
both  must  be  united  into  one  substance,  and  become 
one  solid  piece  of  bread."*  And  he  sanctioned  the 
practice  of  praying  for  the  dead ;  for  he  says,  in  his 
sixty-sixth  Epistle,  that  "  it  had  been  determined  by 
the  bishops,  his  predecessors,  that  if  any  one  appoint- 
ed a  clergyman  to  act  as  a  tutor  for  managing  his  se- 
cular affairs  after  his  death,  no  offering  should  be 
made  for  him  when  he  died,  nor  any  sacrifice  for  his 
repose."\  If  he  was  capable,  however,  of  teaching 
such  errors,  and  countenancing  and  recommending 
such  corruptions,  it  is  certainly  not  more  surprising 
that  he  should  have  deviated  so  far  from  the  doctrine 
of  Scripture,  and  from  the  whole  of  the  fathers  who 
lived  before  him,  in  his  pompous  expressions  about 
the  dignity  of  bishops. 

Still,  however,  it  deserves  to  be  mentioned,  that 
whatever  may  be  the  lofty  and  unwarrantable  claims 
which  he  advances  occasionally  in  regard  to  the  honour 
and  authority  of  bishops,  there  is  not  a  power  which 
is  possessed  by  the  latter,  that  he  or  his  corres- 
pondents do  not  acknowledge  at  other  times  might  be 
exercised  by  presbyters.  Thus  he  not  only  tells  his 
clergy  in  his  sixth  Epistle,  that  from  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  episcopate  he  had  resolved  to  do  nothing 
from  his  own  private  opinion  without  their  council 
and  the  consent  of  his  people ;%  but  in  his  fifth,  which 
was  written  to  them  during  his  banishment,  "he  re- 

manus  impositionem  Spiritum  Sanctum  consequantur,  et  signaculo 
Dominico  consiimmentur."    Epist.  73. 

*  "  Calix  Domini  non  est  aqua  sola,  aut  vinum  solum,  nisi  utrurrs 
que  sibi  misceatur,  quomodo  nec  corpus  Domini  potest  esse  farina 
sola,  aut  .aqua  sola,  nisi  utrumque  adunatum  fucrit,  et  copulatum,  et 
panis  unius  compage  solidatum."    Epist.  63. 

t  "  Ac  si  quis  hoc  fecisset  non  offerretur  pro  eo,  nec  sacrificium 
pro  dormitione  ejus  celebraretur,  ncquo  enim  apud  altare  Dei  mere- 
tur  nominari  in  sacerdotum  prccc  qui  ab  altari  sacerdotes  et  minis- 
tros  voluit  avocare." 

t  "  Quando  a  primordio  cpiscopatus  mei  statuerini  nihil  sine  con- 
silio  vestro,  et  sine  consensu  plebis  meae  privata  sententia  gererc." 


406 


LETTERS  ON* 


quests  them  to  perform  their  own  duty  and  his,  that 
nothing  which  related  either  to  discipline  or  diligence 
might  be  wanting."*  In  his  seventeenth  Epistle,  he 
says,  that  he  would  not  "  prejudge  the  case  of  the 
lapsed,  nor  assume  to  himself  the  sole  power  of  decid- 
ing respecting  it,  but  would  wait  till  he  returned  :"t 
and  in  his  fifteenth,  he  mentions  with  approbation  the 
presbyters  and  deacons  of  the  Church  of  Rome  who 
had  exercised  discipline,  and  displayed,  as  he  expres- 
ses it,  "the  energy  of  the  priesthood  in  restraining 
some  who  had  rashly  communicated  with  the  lapsed.":*: 
In  his  thirty-third  Epistle,  he  tells  his  presbyters  that 
he  was  R  always  accustomed  to  consult  them  before 
he  conferred  orders,"  and  apologizes  to  them  for  not 
doing  it  in  the  case  of  Aurelius,  whom  he  had  ap- 
pointed to  be  a  reader.^  And  in  his  fourteenth,  he 
says  to  them,  that  "  trusting  in  their  affection  as  well 
as  religion,  of  which  he  had  sufficient  evidence,  he  both 
exhorted  and  commanded  them  by  that  letter,  that 
those  of  them  whose  presence  there  might  be  least 
invidious,  and  attended  with  least  danger,  might  per- 
form his  part  in  managing  those  things  which  the 
administration  of  religion  required."||  And  in  like 
manner,  the  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  Rome  who 
appear  to  have  been  without  a  bishop,  say  to  the 
presbyters  of  the  Church  of  Carthage,  during  Cyprian's 
exile,  that  a  it  was  incumbent  on  us,  (z.  e.  on  both.) 
who  seem  to  be  set  over  the  flock,  to  keep  it  in  place 

*  ™  Peto  vos  pro  fide  et  relijione  vestra  fun^amini  illic  et  vestris 
partibus  et  meis,  ut  nihil  vel  ad  disciplinam  vel  ad  diligentiam  desit" 

t  "Quae  res  cum  omnium  nostrum  consilium  et  sententiam  spec- 
tet,  praejudicare  ego  et  soli  mini  rem  communem  vindicare  non 
andeo,"  &c. 

i  "  Presbyteris  etdiaconibus  non  defuit  saccrdotii  vigor  ut  quidam 
minus  disciplinae  memores,  et  temeraria  festinatione  priecipites,  qui 
cum  lapsis  communicare  jam  coeperant  comprimerentur." 

*)  "  In  ordinationibus  clericis,  fratres  carissimi  solemus  tos  ante 
consulere,  et  mores  et  merita  singulorum  communi  consilio  ponde- 
rare  " 

||  "  Fretus  ergo  et  dilectione  et  religione  vestra,  quam  satis  novi, 
bis  Uteris  et  hortor  et  mando,  ut  vos  quorum  minime  illic  invidiosa, 
et  non  adeo  periculosa  praesentia  est,  vice  mea  fungarnini  circa  gerenda 
ea  quae  administratio  religiosa  deposcit."  * 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACr. 


407 


of  the  pastor  or  shepherd."*  And  says  Firmilian,the 
Bishop  of  Caesarea,  an  intimate  friend  and  corres- 
pondent of  Cyprian,  who  could  not  fail  to  be  acquaint- 
ed with  the  powers  which  were  at  that  time  vested 
in  presbyters,  "  All  power  and  grace  are  established 
in  the  Church  where  elders  (or  presbyters)  preside, 
who  possess  the  power  of  baptizing  and  confirming, 
as  well  as  of  ordaining."t  But  if  the  presbyters  of 
Carthage  could  perform  not  only  their  own  duties,  but 
those  of  Cyprian,  during  his  long  continued  exile ;% 
and  if  it  be  stated  by  so  distinguished  a  prelate  as 
Firmilian,  that  presbyters  in  general  possessed  the 
powers  of  ordination  and  confirmation  and  were 
entitled  to  exercise  them,  it  neutralises  in  a  great 
measure  the  pompous  descriptions  of  the  episcopal 
dignity  which  are  given  by  Cyprian ;  and  it  not  only 
proves  that  the  powers  of  presbyters  at  that  early 
period  were  of  a  superior  kind  to  those  of  presbyters 
in  Episcopalian  Churches  in  the  present  day, but  makes 
it  extremely  probable,  that  when  he  speaks  of  the 

*  "  Et  incumbit  nobis,  qui  videmur  praepositi  esse,  et  vice  pastoris 
custodire  gregem,"  &c. 

t  "'Omnia  potestas  et  gratia  in  ccclesia  constituta  sit,  ubi  praesi- 
dent  majores  natu,  rjui  et  baptizandi  et  manurn  imponendi,  et  or- 
dinandi possident  polestatern."  Upon  which  Rigaltius  remarks, 
"  Seniores  et  vcre  irgiT/Si/Tzgo/  qui  et  baptizandi  et  manum  imponendi 
et  ordinandi  possident  potestatem,  ordine  sic  ab  ecclesia  constituta. 
Scd  quare  hie  non  fit  mentio  otferendi,  nisi  quod  tacite  trium  illorum 
potestale  includitur?" 

t  "If  there  be  no  Church  without  a  bishop,"  says  Stillingfleet, 
(Irenicum,  p.  376,)  "  where  was  the  Church  of  Koine,  when,  from  the 
martyrdome  of  Fabian,  and  the  banishment  of  Lucius,  the  Church 
was  governed  only  by  the  clergy?  So  the  Church  of  Carthage,  when 
Cyprian  was  banished  ;  the  Church  of  the  East,  when  Meletius  of  An- 
tioch,  Eusebius  Samosatenus,  Pelagius  of  Eaodicca,  and  the  rest  of  the 
orthodox  bishops  were  banished  for  ten  years'  space,  and  Flavianus 
and  Diodorus,  two  presbyters,  ruled  the  Church  of  Antioch  the  mean 
while.  The  Church  of  Carthage  was  twenty-four  years  without  a 
bishop,  in  the  time  of  Hunerick,  King  of  the  Vandals;  and  when  it 
was  offered  them  that  they  might  have  a  bishop,  upon  admitting  the 
Arians  to  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion  among  them,  their  answer 
was  upon  those  terms,  Ecclesia  Episcopum  non  delectatur  habere; 
and  Balsamon,  speaking  of  the  Christian  Churches  in  the  East,  deter- 
mines  it  neither  safe  nor  necessary  in  their  present  state  to  have 
bishops  set  up  over  them."  The  whole  of  these  Churches  for  that 
long  period  were  governed  by  presbyters. 


40S 


LETTERS  OX 


Church  as  established  in  the  bishop,  lie  regarded  him 
merely  as  the  president  or  chairman,  and  on  some 
occasions,  (if  he  alone  ordained,  like  the  president  of 
the  Sanhedrim,)  as  the  representative  of  the  presby- 
ters.* 

I  cannot  proceed  further  at  present  with  this  part  of 
the  subject,  but  shall  only  remark,  that  though  bishops, 
after  this,  made  gradual  encroachments  on  the  privi- 
leges of  presbyters,  the  latter  were  allowed,  even  in  the 
fourth  century,  to  ordain  priests  and  deacons,  with  the 
consent  of  their  prelates,  and  bishops  were  enjoined  to 
do  nothing  without  consulting  their  presbyters.  Thus, 
it  is  decreed  in  the  thirteenth  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Ancyra,  held  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century, 
that  "  it  be  not  lawful  for  chorepiscopi  to  ordain  priests 
or  deacons,  nor  for  city  presbyters  in  another  parish, 
without  the  permission  of  the  bishop ;"t  evidently 
implying,  that  if  he  gave  them  leave  they  might  confer 
orders.  Origen,  though  only  a  presbyter,  is  said  to 
have  been  chosen  to  preside  at  a  synod,  held  at  Phila- 
delphia, a.  d.  327:  and  Malchion,  a  presbyter  of  An- 
tioch,  presided  in  the  second  council  held  in  that  city, 
a.  d.  269,  in  which  Paul  of  Samosata  was  condemned. i 
Thirty  presbyters  sat  in  judgment  along  with  three 
hundred  bishops,  in  the  year  29.5,  on  Marcellinus, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  who  had  apostatized  and  burnt  in- 

*  The  Rev.  Mr.  Sinclair  remarks,  after  Sage,  (Dissertation  on 
Episcopacy,  p.  82,)  that  "  we  read,"  in  Cyprian's  Epistles,  "  of  bishops 
having  a  primacy,  an  absolute,  arbitrary,  sovereign  jurisdiction,  for 
which  they  are  accountable  to  none  but  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  singly  and  solely  has  the  power  of  preferring  bishops  to  the 
government  of  his  Church,  and  of  calling  them  to  account  for  the 
administration  of  it."  But  any  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  writ- 
ings of  this  father  will  perceive  that  it  is  one  of  those  pieces  of  rhodo- 
montade  about  the  power  of  bishops,  in  which  he  frequently  indulges. 
Cyprian  was  aware  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  called  bishops  to  ac- 
count, even  in  the  present  world,  before  councils  or  synods,  which 
were  composed  not  only  of  bishops,  but  presbyters,  and  in  which,  as 
will  be  immediately  proved,  the  latter  occasionally  presided,  and 
caused  them,  when  their  opinions  were  heretical,  or  their  conduct 
schismatical  or  immoral,  to  be  censured,  and  even  deposed.  Instances 
of  this  are  mentioned  in  his  Epistles, 
t  "  XugiTintiiryj;  fxx  tgunu,"  Sec. 

t  Letter  from  a  Parochial  Bishop  to  a  Prelatical  Gentleman,  p.  39. 


FTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


409 


cense  in  the  temple  of  Tsis  and  Vesta,  and  pronounced 
sentence  upon  him.*  Thirty-six  presbyters  subscribed 

*  "Hie  Marcellinus  convictus  est,  quod  thurificasset  in  templo 
Isidis  et  Vestae,  per  Gaium  et  Innocentium  diaconos,  et  Urbanum, 
Castorium  et  Juvenalem,  presbytcros  et  per  alios  testes.  Et  tandem 
in  Synodo  300  cpiscoporum  et  30  presby  terorum  caput  cinere  con- 
volutum  liabens,  Marcellinus,  Episcopus  urbis  Romae,  voce  clara 
clamans  dixit,  Peccavi  coram  vobis,  et  non  possum  esse  in  ordine 
sacerdotum,  quoniam  avarus  me  corrupit  auro.  Et  subscripserunt 
in  ejus  damnationem,  et  damnaverunt  eum  extra  civitatem  dicentes, 
quia  ore  suo  condemnatus  est,  et  ore  suo  anathematizatus,  aecepit 
maranatha."    See  Carranza's  Summa  Conciliorum. 

"  Marsilius  Patavinus,"  says  Jessop,  in  his  Remarks  on  Episco- 
pacy, p.  55,  "  disputing  concerning  the  order  of  priesthood,  or  of  a 
presbyter,  (for  they  are  all  one,)  and  the  power  of  the  keyes  to  bind 
and  loose,  observeth  out  of  the  forementioned  father,  (Jerome,)  the 
Church  hath  these  keyes  in  the  presbyters  and  bishops,  and  gives  this 
reason  why  Hierome,  speaking  of  this  power  of  the  keyes,  doth  men- 
tion presbyters  before  the  bisbops;  because  this  authoritie  belongs  to 
a  presbyter,  as  a  presbyter  primarily  and  properly.  Praeponens  in  hoc 
presbyteros  quoniam  authoritas  haec  debetur  presbytero,  in  quantum 
presbyter,  primo,  et  secundum  quod  ipsum. 

"  Bartholomaeus  Brixniensis  and  Joannes  Scmeca,"  says  he,  p.  56, 
"both  glossators  of  the  common  law,  doe  maintaine  and  prove  even 
out  of  it,  that  by  right  presbyters  may  excommunicate,  though  the 
bishops,  by  custom  and  prescription,  have  taken  the  power  out  of  their 
hands.  Ecclesiarum  praelati  de  jure  communi  possunt  excommuni- 
care,  licet  episcopi  jam  praescripserint  contra  multos  praelatos. 
Gloss,  in  caus.  2,  ques.  1,  cap.  11.  verbo  Excoinmunicat. 

Not  only  have  bishops  taken  away  this  power  from  presbyters,  but 
if  the  following  account  of  the  way  in  which  they  exercise  it  in  the 
Church  of  England  be  true,  it  is  impossible  to  think  of  it  without  the 
deepest  regret.  "  If  there  be  any  thing,"  says  Bishop  Crofts,  in  his 
Naked  Truth,  p.  58,  "  in  the  office  of  a  bishop  to  be  challenged  pecu- 
liar to  themselves,  certainly  it  should  be  this,  (excommunication) ;  yet 
this  is  in  a  manner  quite  relinquished  to  their  chancellors;  laymen 
who  have  no  more  capacity  to  sentence  or  absolve  a  sinner,  than  to 
dissolve  the  heavens  or  the  earth.  And  this  pretended  power  of  the 
chancellor  is  sometimes  purchased  icith  a  sum  of  money.  Their  money 
perish  with  them  !  Good  God,  ichut  a  horrid  abuse  is  this  of  the 
divine  authority  ?  But  this  notorious  transgression  is  excused,  as 
they  think,  by  this,  that  a  minister,  called  the  bishop's  surrogate,  but 
who  is  indeed  the  chancellor's  servant,  chosen,  called  and  placed  there 
by  him  to  be  his  crier  in  the  court,  no  better;  that  when  he  hath 
examined,  heard  and  sentenced  the  cause,  then  the  minister  forsooth 
pronounces  the  sentence.  Just  as  if  the  rector  of  a  parish  church 
should  exclude  any  of  his  congregation,  and  lock  him  out  of  the 
church ;  then  comes  the  clerk,  shows  and  fingers  the  keys,  that  all 
may  take  notice  that  he  is  excluded.  And  by  this  his  authority,  the 
chancellor  takes  upon  him  to  sentence  not  only  laymen,  but  clergy- 
men also  brought  into  his  court  for  any  delinquency  ;  and  in  the  court 
of  Arches  sentences  even  bishops  themselves." 


410 


LETTERS  ON 


the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Elliberia,  which  related 
to  excommunication,  and  not  merely  to  doctrine;  and 
twelve  presbyters  subscribed  the  canons  of  the  Council 
of  Aries,  concerning  the  suspension  of  bishops.  Nay, 
even  the  imperial  law  seems  to  intimate,  that  pres- 
byters might  excommunicate  as  well  as  bishops. 
"  We  charge,"  it  says,  "  all  bishops  and  priests,  that 
they  separate  no  man  from  the  communion  before 
they  show  the  cause,  &c.  And  he  that  presumes  to 
excommunicate,  let  him  be  put  from  the  communion." 
Nov.  Constitute  125,  c.  11.  And  though  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Carthage  decreed,  in  their  35th  canon,  that 
"  the  bishop,  when  he  was  in  the  church,  and  sitting 
in  the  presbytery,  should  be  placed  on  a  higher  seat," 
yet  they  required  him  "  when  he  was  in  the  house  to 
acknowledge  himself  the  colleague  of  the  presbyters;" 
enjoining  him,  in  their  22d  canon,  "to  ordain  no  one 
without  the  advice  of  his  clergy,  and  the  consent  of 
his  fellow-citizens;"*  and  that  "he  should  hear  the 
cause  of  no  one  without  the  presence  of  his  clergy, 
otherwise  his  sentence  should  be  void."t  Attempts, 
indeed,  were  soon  made  to  circumscribe  the  powers 
of  presbyters,  and  to  increase  the  dignity  and  autho- 
rity of  bishops,  and  to  depress  the  power  of  the  bishops 
of  smaller  sees,  and  subject  them  to  the  bishops  of 
cities  and  to  metropolitans.  Thus  it  was  decreed  in 
the  6th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  that  "no 
bishops  should  be  settled  for  the  future  in  villages 
and  country  places,  lest  the  name  and  authority  of  a 
bishop  should  fall  into  contempt ;"}  by  the  Council 

*"Ut  episcopus  sine  consilio  clericorum  suorum  clericos  non 
ordinet,  ita  ut  civium  conniventiam  et  testimonium  quaerat." 

t  "Ut  episcopus  nullius  causam  audiat  absque  praesentia  clerico- 
rum suorum;  alioquin  irrita  erit  sententia  episcopi  nisi  clericorum 
praesentia  confirmetur." 

t  So  rapidly  did  corruption  spread,  that  the  Council  of  Carthage 
say,  in  their  twenty-fourth  canon,  that  "their  fathers  had  deservedly 
granted  the  pre-eminence  to  the  episcopal  throne  in  Rome,  because 
it  was  the  imperial  city;  am  yi^  ra  d^cvu  mf  irgsr/SuTsg*?,  &c.  And 
Augustine,  in  his  Quaestiones  ex  utroque  mixtim,  cap.  101,  torn.  iv. 
soys,  that  for  the  same  reason,  the  deacons  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
were  to  have  the  pre-eminence  above  the  deacons  of  the  churches  of  all 
other  cities."     "Idcirco  honorabiliores  habitos  fuisse  quam  apud 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


411 


of  Laodicea,  (canon  57,)  that  "those  bishops  who 
were  ordained  in  such  places  already,  should  do 
nothing  without  the  knowledge  of  the  bishops  of 
cities;"  and  by  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.  d.  326,  "that 
in  every  province  there  should  be  some  one  bishop 
reckoned  chief  and  supreme,  who  should  be  called  a 
Metropolitan,  without  whose  knowledge  and  consent 
(it  was  further  determined  by  the  Council  of  Antioch, 
a.  d.  341,)  the  bishops  of  inferior  cities  should  not 
ordain  any  bishop,  nor  do  any  thing  of  moment." 
Having  deviated  thus  far  from  the  arrangements  of 
the  Redeemer  respecting  the  office-bearers  of  his 
Church  as  they  are  revealed  in  Scripture,  patriarchs 
followed,  and  by  and  by  they  were  succeeded  by  one 
supreme  universal  bishop. 

It  has  been  asserted,  I  am  sensible,  that  the  ordina- 
tion of  Ischyras,  who  had  received  orders  from  Collu- 
thus,  a  presbyter  of  Alexandria,  which  were  pro- 
nounced invalid  by  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  proves, 
that  presbyters  were  considered  at  that  period  as  hav- 
ing no  power  to  ordain.  But  it  will  be  evident  to  any 
one  who  looks  into  the  facts  as  they  are  stated  by 
Blondel,*  that  it  was  for  other  reasons  than  his  having 
been  ordained  by  a  presbyter,  that  the  orders  of  Ischy- 
ras were  declared  to  be  uncanonical.  The  ordination 
took  place  in  another  diocese  than  that  to  which  Collu- 
thus  belonged,  and  where  he  had  no  right,  according  to 
the  canons,  to  ordain  any  one.  Colluthus,  too,  was  in  a 
state  of  schism,  which  alone  would  have  vitiated  these 
orders.  Ischyras  had  no  title,  and  orders  conferred 
where  there  was  no  title  were  declared  to  be  void. 
And  Colluthus  is  alleged  to  have  been  made  a  bishop 
by  Meletius,  who  also  was  in  a  state  of  schism ;  for  the 

caeterns  Ecclesias,  propter  magmficentiam  urhis  Romanae,  quae  caput 
esse  videbatur  omnium  civitatum."  How  different  was  this  from  the 
equality  which,  according  to  Jerome,  ought  to  exist  among  all  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  who  are  of  the  same  order,  and  in  particular 
among  bishops.  "  Ubicunque,"  says  he,  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius, 
"fuerit  episcopus  sive  Romac,  sive  Eugubii,  sivc  Constantinopolis,  sive 
Regii,  sive  Alexandriae,  sive  Tanis,  ejusdcin  meriti,  ejusdemque  saccr- 
dotii  esse;  potcntiam  divitiarum,  et  paupertatis  humilitatem  vcl  subli- 
miorem,  vel  inferiorem  episcopum  non  facere." 
*  Apology,  p.  317,  327. 


412 


LETTERS  0NT 


clergy  of  Mareotis,  when  speaking  of  the  ordination 
of  Ischyras,  say,  that  it  was  performed  "by  Colluthus 
the  presbyter,  making  a  show  of  being  a  bishop."* 
No  argument,  therefore,  can  be  brought  from  the  case 
of  Colluthus,  a  schismatical  presbyter  assuming  the 
character  of  a  bishop,  and  ordaining  another  without 
a  title,  in  a  diocese  with  which  he  had  no  connexion, 
to  show  that  presbyters,  who  were  living  in  commu- 
nion with  the  Church,  could  not  give  valid  orders, 
with  the  permission  of  the  bishop,  within  their  own 
diocese,  to  such  as  were  not  schismatics,  and  who  had 
a  title. 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XXIV. 

Reply  to  the  argument  for  Episcopacy,  that  there  was  always  imparity 
anions  the  orders  in  the  ministry  under  the  preceding  dispensations,  and 
there  ought  still  to  be  imparity  under  ihe  New  Testament  Dispensation. — 
This  proved  to  be  a  begging  of  the  question,  and  that  we  must  learn  from 
the  Scriptures  themselves  whether  imparity  was  to  continue  among  the 
ministers  of  ihe  Gospel. — Dr.  Raynolds  acknowledges,  that  "  these  who 
had  been  most  zealous  for  the  Reformation  of  ihe  Church  for  five  hundred 
years  before  that  event,"  did  not  believe  in  the  divine  institution  of  Epis- 
copacy.— Dr.  Ravnoldsand  Hooker  admit  this  to  have  been  the  doctrine 
of  the  Waldensian  Churches,  and  of  Huss  and  his  followers,  who  had  no 
minister  superior  to  presbyters. — This  proved  to  be  Ihe  highest  order  of 
their  ministers  by  the  testimony  of  their  own  pastors,  and  other  autho- 
rities.— Calvin  and  Beza,  according  to  Dr.  Ravnolds,  Hooker, and  Heylin, 
denied  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  this  confirmed  by  their  wri- 
tjnes. — The  rest  of  the  leading  foreign  Reformers  rejected  it,  though 
Melancthon  would  have  submitted  to  bishops,  and  even  a  Pope,  for  the 
sake  of  peace. — Zanchius  unfairly  claimed  by  Episcopalians  as  approv- 
ing of  the  powers  possessed  by  their  bishops — The  foreign  Protestant 
Churches  without  bishops,  not  from  necessity,  as  Episcopalians  allege,  but 
torn  principle. — This  proved  by  Jeremy  Taylor. 

Reverend  Sir. — Having  finished  the  examination  of 
the  different  arguments  for  diocesan  Episcopacy  and 
the  apostolical  succession,  which  have  been  advanced 
by  its  advocates  from  Scripture  and  antiquity,  I  might 
close  this  discussion,  which  has  been  already  too  pro- 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


413 


tracted ;  but  before  I  do  so,  I  must  advert  very  briefly 
to  one  or  two  topics  on  which  they  are  accustomed  to 
expatiate,  and  by  which  tbey  endeavour  to  evade  the 
force  of  our  reasoning.  They  tell  us,  for  instance, 
that  there  has  always  been  imparity  among  the  minis- 
ters of  religion,  for  under  the  Mosaic  Dispensation  the 
high-priest  was  superior  to  the  priests  and  Levites; 
the  Redeemer,  while  he  was  on  earth,  was  superior 
to  the  twelve  and  the  seventy  disciples ;  and  under 
the  Gospel  Dispensation,  the  Apostles  were  superior 
to  the  rest  of  the  ministers  of  the  early  Church.  But 
upon  the  principles  of  Presbyterians  this  imparity  is 
destroyed,  the  different  individuals  in  the  standing 
ministry  in  the  New  Testament  Church  being  placed, 
by  their  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  on  a  footing  of 
ecmality.  Upon  this,  however,  I  remark,  that  since 
they  appeal  to  Scripture  for  the  model  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  Church,  they  are  bound  to  fol- 
low it;  and  the  only  point  which  we  are  called  to 
determine,  is  simply  this,  whether  the  Gospel  ministry, 
as  it  is  represented  in  its  pages,  is  characterized  by 
the  principle  of  imparity  or  parity.  It  is  not  enough 
to  tell  us  that  there  was  imparity  among  the  ministers 
of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  but  they  must  prove 
that  they  were  to  be  the  pattern  of  the  evangelical 
ministry;  and  if  they  succeed  in  doing  this,  it  will  im- 
mediately follow  that  there  is  not  a  single  Episco- 
palian Church,  whether  Protestant  or  Popish,  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  as  was  formerly  demonstrated,  which 
resembles  that  Church  in  the  orders  of  its  ministry. 
Nor  is  it  enough  to  refer  to  the  superiority  of  our 
Lord,  while  he  ministered  upon  earth,  to  the  twelve 
and  the  seventy,  for  the  Old  Testament  Church  had 
not  ceased  to  exist,  nor  had  the  New  Testament 
Church  been  begun;  and  consequently  any  imparity 
which  they  may  discover  between  him,  and  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  disciples,  prior  to  his  resurrection,  fur- 
nishes no  warrant  for  a  similar  imparity  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  under  the  present  dispensa- 
tion. All  therefore  that  remains  is  the  apostolic  age; 
and  unless  they  can  prove  that  there  was  imparity, 


414 


LETTERS  ON 


not  only  at  that  time  among  the  ministers  of  the 
Church,  but  that  it  was  appointed  to  continue  till  the 
end  of  the  world,  they  have  no  right  to  maintain  that 
there  ought  to  be  imparity  at  present  among  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  Christ,  the 
only  King  and  Head  of  his  Church,  to  fix  the  arrange- 
ments respecting  the  Christian  ministry;  and  we  are 
neither  to  add  to  it  a  single  order  which  he  has  not 
appointed,  because  we  are  desirous  to  preserve  a 
similar  imparity  to  what  existed  among  the  ministers 
of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  nor  to  take  from  it  any 
order  which  he  has  instituted,  because  we  are  partial 
to  parity.  There  was  certainly  imparity  among  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  in  the  apostolic  age;  but  it 
remains  yet  to  be  proved  that  it  extended  any  further 
than  between  those  of  them  who  were  extraordinary, 
and  who  were  destined  to  cease  after  they  had  founded 
and  organized  the  early  Church,  such  as  Apostles, 
prophets  and  evangelists;  and  those  of  them  who 
were  ordinary,  and  who  were  destined  to  continue 
throughout  future  ages,  namely,  pastors  and  teachers; 
Eph.  iv.  11,  13.  If  the  imparity,  however,  which 
existed  in  that  age  consisted  only  of  the  inferiority  of 
pastors  and  teachers  to  Apostles,  prophets  and  evan- 
gelists, and  of  the  inferiority  of  the  last  of  these  three 
extraordinary  orders  to  the  two  former,  and  of  both 
prophets  and  evangelists  to  the  Apostles;  and  if  no 
evidence  can  be  produced,  (and  I  challenge  you  to  do 
it,  for  it  has  never  yet  been  done,)  of  the  appointment 
of  an  order  of  ordinary  ministers  superior  to  pres- 
byters, you  have  no  right  to  introduce  a  principle  of 
imparity,  which  Christ  has  not  sanctioned,  into  the 
Christian  priesthood,  and  I  am  entitled  to  maintain 
that  a  principle  directly  and  expressly  the  reverse 
ought  to  characterize  the  ministry  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church. 

It  has  been  alleged,  too,  that  the  famous  Walden- 
sian  Churches,  as  well  as  the  followers  of  Hnss,  be- 
lieved in  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  that 
this  was  the  light  in  which  it  was  viewed  also  by 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin  and  Beza,  and  the  other 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


415 


foreign  Reformers,  who  were  prevented  only  by  ne- 
cessity from  having  bishops,  as  they  had  neither  funds 
to  support  them,  nor  could  they  procure  for  them  re- 
gular episcopal  ordination.  Nothing,  however,  can 
be  more  contrary  to  fact  than  the  first  part  of  this 
statement,  if  the  testimony  either  of  Hooker  or  Dr. 
Raynolds  is  entitled  to  any  credit.  The  former  men- 
tions "  them  of  Walden,"  or  the  Waldenses,  among 
those  who  thought  that  "  the  Apostles  did  neither  by 
word  or  deed  appoint"  Episcopacy  *  And  says  the 
latter,  "wherto  may  be  added,  that  they  also  who 
have  laboured  about  the  reforming  of  the  Church 
these  Jive  hundred  years  have  taught,  that  all  pastors, 
be  they  entitled  bishops  or  priests,  have  equall  au- 
thority and  power  by  God's  word.  First,  the  Wal- 
denses, (Aeneas  Sylv.  Hist.  Boh.  cap.  35,  et  Pigh. 
Hierarch.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii.  cap.  10;)  next,  Marsilius 
Patavinus,  (Defens.  Pacis,  pars  2,  cap.  15;)  then 
Wickliffe  and  his  schollers,  (Thorn.  Walden.  Doct. 
Fidei,  torn.  i.  lib.  2,  cap.  60;)  afterwards  Husse, 
(Aeneas  Sylv.  loco  citato;)  last  of  all,  Luther,  Calvine, 
Brentius,  Bullinger,  Musculus,  and  others,  who  might 
be  reckoned  perticularly,  in  great  number,  sith  as  here 
with  us;  both  Bishops  Jewel,  (loco  citato,)  and  Pil- 
kington,  in  the  Treatise  of  Burning  Paule's  Church; 
and  the  Queen's  Professors  of  Divinity  in  our  univer- 
sities, (D.  Humphrey  in  Camp,  et  in  Duraeum  Jesuitas, 
pars  2,  et  rat.  3,  et  D.  Whitaker,  ad  rat.  Campiani, 
&c.)  and  other  learned  men,  M.  Bradford,  Lambert, 
and  others,  M.  Fox,  Acts,  &c,  D.  Fulke  against  Bris- 
tow,  and  Answer  to  the  Rhenhsts,  (tit.  i.  5,)  do  con- 
sent therein  :  so  in  forreine  nations  all  whom  I  have 
read  treating  of  this  matter,  and  many  moe,  (no 
doubt,)  whom  I  have  not  read."t  And  this  account 
of  the  Waldenses  is  confirmed,  not  only  by  Mr.  Ac- 
land,  who  acknowledges  that  Episcopacy,  which  he 
considers  as  "the  ornament  of  your  Establishment,  is 
no  longer  preserved  among  the  Vaudois,"  but  by  Al- 
phonsus  de  Castro,  who  says,  that  "  after  many  years 

*  Ecclesiast.  Polity,  book  vii.  p.  395. 
t  Letter  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys. 


416 


LETTERS  ON 


the  Waldenses  revived  this  erroneous  opinion,  that 
there  is  no  difference  among  priests."*  And  in  the 
year  1530,  when  George  Mauzel  and  Peter  Latomus, 
two  of  their  ministers,  were  sent  to  inquire  into  the 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  after  stating  to  CEco- 
lampadius  that  '•'  they  were  the  teachers  of  a  poor 
people,  who  had  existed  for  more  than  four  hundred 
years,  or,  as  their  ancestors  told  them,  from  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,"t  they  inquired  whether  there  ought 
"  to  be  degrees  of  dignity  among  the  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  such  as  the  episcopate,  the  presbyterate,  and 
the  office  of  the  deacon,"  and  at  the  same  time  added, 
that  '■'■they  did  not  use  these  degrees,  having  only 
presbyters  ;"i  which  agrees  exactly  with  a  still  more 
early  testimony  recorded  by  Perrin,  (ch.  xiii.  p.  25,)  in 
which  they  say,  "  We  hold  that  no  person  ought  to 
presume  to  take  that  honour,  (the  office  of  the  minis- 
try,) but  he  who  is  called  of  God,  as  Aaron;  feeding 
the  flock  of  God,  not  for  filthy  lucre's  sake,  or  as  hav- 
ing superiority  over  the  clergy,  but  as  being  an  ex- 
ample to  them  in  word,  in  conversation,  in  charity,  in 
faith,  and  in  chastity."  And  with  regard  to  Huss,  I 
have  only  briefly  to  mention,  that  the  fourth  of  the 
articles,  on  account  of  which  de  Caussis  accused  him 

*  "  Hunc  eundem  errorern  post  multos  annos,  ab  inferis  suscitarunt 
Waldenses  dicentes  nullum  esse  inter  sacerdotes  discriinen." 

t  "Quandoquidem  ut  rem  semel  capias  suoius  qualescunque  doc- 
tores  cujusdam  plebis  indigae  et  pusillae  quae  jam  plusquam  quad- 
ringentis  annis,  imo  ut  frequenter  nostrates  narrant,  a  tempore  Apos- 
tolorum,  non  tamen  ut  facile  judicarunt  quique  pii,  citra  Christi  in- 
gentein  favorem  commorata  est."  Sculteti  Annales  Evdiigelii  Re- 
novati,  p.  161. 

t  "  Primo  an  inter  verbi  Dei  ministros  debeant  ordinari  dignitatum 
gradus,  ut  puta  episcopatus,  presbyterii  et  diaconatus.  His  tamen 
gradibus  inter  nos  non  utimur." 

Speaking  of  the  ordination  of  their  candidates  for  the  ministry, 
they  say,  "Consumpto  autem  hoc  tempore,  Eucharistiae  sacramento 
impositioneque  manuum  discipuii  praedicti  suscipiuntur  in  presbyterii 
et  praedicationis  officium,  et  hoc  modo  instructi  ac  edocti  ad  evan- 
gelizandum  bini  emittuntur.  Verumtamen  talis  mos  observatur  ut 
omnino  qui  prius  susceptus  fuerit  sequentem  semper  honore,  dignitate 
et  administratione  praecedat  eique  magister  constituatur."  Sculteti 
Annales  Evangelii  Renovati,  p.  161,  in  Von  der  Hardt's  Historia  Li- 
teraria.  See,  too,  Ruchat's  Histoire  de  la  Reformation  de  la  Suisse, 
torn.  iii.  p.  258,  and  Gerdesius's  Hist.  Evang.  Renov.,  vol.  ii.  p.  402. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACT. 


417 


to  the  Pope,  and  he  was  afterwards  condemned  by 
the  Council  of  Constance,  was  that  he  represented 
"all  presbyters  as  having  equal  power;  and  asserted 
that  the  reservation  of  causes  to  the  Pope  and  the 
bishops,  and  the  ordination  and  consecration  of  the 
clergy,  had  been  introduced  through  the  avarice  and 
ambition  of  their  superiors."*  And  while  Aeneas 
Sylvius  asserts,  in  general  terms,  that  both  Huss  and 
Jerome  of  Prague  "  had  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the 
Waldenses,"  (Catalog.  Test.  fol.  1833,)  it  is  acknow- 
ledged by  Heylin,  that  their  followers  "had  fallen 
upon  a  way  of  ordaining  ministers  among  themselves, 
without  having  recourse  to  the  bishop,  or  any  such 
officer,  as  a  superintendent;"  and  it  appears  from 
their  Formularies,  that  the  excommunication  of  a 
minister  was  a  power  which  was  exercised  only  by 
a  synod.  "  Excommunicato  ministri  non  nisi  toto 
synodo  competit."    (Ratio  Unitalis  Fratrum.) 

Nor  is  the  view  which  is  given  by  Dr.  Raynolds,  of 
the  sentiments  of  the  leading  foreign  Reformers,  less 
just,  though  Whitgift,  Bancroft,  Bishop  Hall  and 
others,  represent  them  as  admitting  the  divine  right 
of  Episcopacy.  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  the  whole 
of  the  divines  who  subscribed  the  articles  of  Smalkald, 
declare  expressly,  that  according  to  Scripture  there  is 
no  difference  as  to  power  or  dignity  between  bishops 
and  presbyters;  and  the  same  opinion,  as  was  for- 
merly proved,  is  distinctly  avowed  in  their  writings, 

*  "  Quarto  circa  ecclesiam  crrat,  quod  omnes  prrshyti ros  paris  (licit 
esse  potest atis,  ordinalionetn  it  clericorum  rousecialiomm  dicit  propter 
cuplditatem  vel  ambitionem  superiorum  adinventas."  Historita  Nar- 
ratio  de  Fratrum  Orthodoxorum  Ecclesiis  in  Bohemia,  &c.  ofCame- 
rarius,  p.  174.  And  in  an  Epistola  Elcnchtica  Anonymi  Theologi  in 
Concilio  Constantiensi,  addressed  to  de  iVlisa,  one  of  the  followers  of 
Huss,  and  published  by  Von  der  Mardt,  in  his  Magnum  Constantiense 
Concilium,  torn,  iii.,  he  refers  to  the  disciples  of  the  Reformer  as  hold- 
ing that  opinion,  and  attempts  to  refute  it.  "  Sic  illi  maxime  peccant 
qui  detrahunt  Papae  diccntes,  quod  non  Papa  sit  major  saceidos,  sed 
fratcr  cum  ahis  sacerdotibus,  quia  Apostoli  vocabant  se  invicem  fra- 
tres.  Et  sic  illi  errant,  Bicut  quida.nl  haerttici  de  sccta  Gruecorum 
qui  crrabant  dicentes,  quod  Papa  non  sit  majoris  auctoritatis  quam 
simplex  sacerdos.  And  so  they  err,  as  certain  heretics  of  the  sect  of 
the  Greeks  erred,  who  affirmed  that  the  J'ope  had  no  more  authority 
than  a  simple  priest." 

27 


418 


LETTERS  OX 


and  was  never  retracted.  Melancthon,  indeed,  who 
was  too  ready  to  give  up  even  great  principles  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  inserted  a  liberal  statement  about 
bishops  in  the  Confession  of  Augsburg;  and  from  a 
desire  to  conciliate  the  Papists,  expressed  the  willing- 
ness of  the  Lutherans  to  submit  to  them  to  a  certain 
extent,  if  they  would  only  be  subject  to  Christ,  and 
not  tyrannize  over  their  brethren.*  But,  as  Mr. 
Hickman  remarks,  "he  complains  repeatedly  how 
much  he  was  blamed  for  it  by  his  brethren. "t  And 
we  know  that  under  the  influence  of  these  feelings, 
he  declared  his  willingness  not  only  to  have  diocesan 
bishops,  bat  even  a  Pope,  (though  we  never  hear  of 
it  from  Episcopalians;)  and  thought  it  might  be  use- 
ful, because  it  would  unite  all  nations  in  the  faith,  if 
he  would  only  take  care  that  sound  doctrine  should 
be  preached  throughout  the  Church.  When  he  sub- 
scribed, accordingly,  the  Articles  of  Smalkald,  which 
were  drawn  up  by  Luther,  we  are  told  by  Osiander, 
(Epitom.  Hist.  Eccles.  p.  285,)  that  he  did  it  in  the 
following  terms:  "I,  Philip  Melancthon,  approve  of 
the  preceding  articles  as  pious  and  Christian.  And 
in  regard  to  the  Pope,  if  he  would  admit  the  Gospel, 
I  think  that  for  the  common  peace  of  Christians,  who 
are  under  him,  or  who  shall  in  future  be  under  him, 
we  could  allow  him  that  superiority  which  he  pos- 
sesses over  bishops,  as  a  mere  human  arrangement." \ 

*  In  the  conference  between  the  Papists  and  Protestants,  which 
took  place  at  Augsburg,  in  1530,  Slcidan  says,  that  "as  far  as  re- 
lated to  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  bishops,  the  Saxons,  including 
Melancthon,  were  disposed  to  make  large  concessions,  but  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse,  the  inhabitants  of  Luneburg,  and  others,  did  not 
approve  of  it.  Sed  neque  Luntgravius,  neque  Luneburgici,  neque 
Noribergenses  probabant,"  &c.  Upon  which  Osiander  remarks, 
(Epitome  Hist.  Eccles.  cent.  xvi.  p.  185,)  "Melancthon  seems  to 
have  been  inclined  to  make  some  concessions  to  bishops  as  to  juris- 
diction ;  for  he  hoped,  if  this  were  done,  that  they  would  be  less  un- 
favourable to  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel;  but  Philip  did  not 
consider  that  the  wolf  might  change  his  hair,  but  not  his  disposition. 
Sed  non  cogitabat  Philippus,"  &.C. 

t  "Certuin  est  Melancthonem  episcopis  in  Augustana  confessione 
aliquid  concessisse  quo  nomine  quantum  a  fratribus  incusatus  fuerit 
ipse  non  in  uno  loco  conqueritur."  Apologia  pro  Ejectis  in  Anglia 
Ministris,  p.  122. 

t  "Ego  Philippus  Melancthon  suprapositos  articulos  approbo,  ut 


PUSETITE  EPISCOPACY. 


419 


In  his  tract,  however,  upon  order,  which  was  written 
many  years  after  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  well 
as  in  his  exposition  of  the  118th  Psalm,  and  others  of 
his  works,  he  denies  in  the  most  pointed  and  explicit 
terms  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy;  and,  as 
Seckendorf  informs  us,  both  Luther  and  he  retained 
that  opinion  till  the  day  of  their  death.    And  the 
view  which  is  presented  by  Dr.  Raynolds  of  the  sen- 
timents both  of  Calvin  and  Beza  is  equally  correct; 
for  though,  in  consequence  of  repeated  and  earnest 
applications  from  the  English  prelates,  and  from  the 
respect  which  they  entertained  for  the  English  Go- 
vernment, as  the  principal  protector  of  the  Protestants, 
they  expressed  themselves  favourably  on  different  oc- 
casions respecting  orthodox  bishops,  yet  we  have  in- 
contestable evidence  that  they  did  not  look  upon 
Episcopacy  as  founded  upon  divine  appointment,  but 
regarded  it  merely  as  a  human  institution.   Such,  for 
instance,  is  the  statement  of  Hooker  respecting  Calvin, 
for  in  a  passage  before  quoted,  he  includes  him  among 
those  who  did  not  think  that  "  the  Apostles  appointed 
it  either  by  word  or  deed ;"  and  he  was  as  likely  to 
be  acquainted  with  the  opinion  of  the .  Reformer  as 
any  Episcopalian  in  the  present  day.    Such,  too,  was 
the  statement  of  Heylin,  who  wrote  long  after  his 
time,  and  after  the  publication  of  the  whole  of  Cal- 
vin's works;  for  he  says  to  Burton,  in  a  passage  be- 
fore referred  to,  "if  by  your  divines  you  meane  the 
Genevian  doctors,  Calvin  and  Beza,  Viret  and  Fa- 
rellus,  Bucan,  Ursinus,  and  those  other  of  forreine 
Churches,  whom  you  esteem  the  only  orthodox  pro- 
fessors, you  may  affirm  it  very  safely,  that  the  deriva- 
tion of  episcopal  authority  from  our  Lord  Christ  is 
utterly  disclaimed  by  your  divines.     Calvin  had 
never  else  invented  the  presbytery,  nor  with  such 
violence  obtruded  it  on  all  the  Reformed  Churches; 
neither  had  Beza  divided  episcopatum  into  divinum, 

pios  ct  Christianos.  De  Pontifice  autem  statuo,  Si  Evang-elion  ad- 
mittcret,  posse  ei  propter  pacem,  ct  communem  tranquillitatem  Chris- 
tianorum,  qui  jam  sub  ipso  sunt,  ct  in  posterum  sub  ipso  erunt  supc- 
rioritatem  in  episcopos  quam  alioqui  liabet  jure  humano  etiam  a  nobis 
permitti."    See,  too,  Gerdesii  Hist.  Evang.  Henovat.  vol.  iv.  p.  123. 


420 


LETTERS  ON 


humanum,  and  Satanicum,  as  you  know  he  doth.'/ 
And  such,  as  is  evident  from  the  writings  of  Calvin, 
was  undeniably  his  opinion.  Thus,  after  remarking, 
in  his  Exposition  of  Philippians,  i.  1,  that  "the  term 
bishop  was  common  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  word," 
he  adds,  that  "  from  the  corrupt  signification  of  the 
word,  (when  it  was  appropriated  to  one,)  this  evil 
ensued,  that  under  the  pretence  of  this  new  designa- 
tion, one  has  usurped  authority  over  the  others,  as  if 
all  the  presbyters  had  not  been  colleagues  called  to 
the  same  function."  "It  was  therefore  a  very  wicked 
deed,"  says  he  in  his  Institutes,  "that  one  man 
having  got  the  power  into  his  own  hand  which  was 
common  to  the  whole  college  (of  presbyters,)  paved 
the  way  to  tyrannical  domination,  snatched  from  the 
Church  her  own  right,  and  abolished  the  presbytery, 
ivhich  had  been  ordained  by  the  spirit  of 'Christ.'"* 
And  in  his  Commentary  on  the  20th  chapter  of  the 
Acts,  which  was  written  shortly  before  his  death,  he 
says,  "Concerning  the  word  bishop,  it  is  observable 
that  Paul  gives  this  title  to  all  the  presbyters  of 
Ejjhesns ;  from  which  we  may  infer,  that  according 
to  Scripture,  jjresbyters  differed  in  no  respect  from 
bishops,  but  that  it  arose  from  corruption,  and  a  de- 
parture from  primitive  purity,  that  those  who  held  the 
first  seats  in  particular  congregations  began  to  be  called 
bishops.  1  say  that  it  arose  from  corruption, — not  that 
it  is  an  evil  for  some  one  in  each  college  of  pastors  to 
be  distinguished  above  the  rest,  but  because  it  is  in- 
tolerable presumption  that  men,  in  perverting  the 
titles  of  Scripture  to  their  own  honour,  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  alter  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit."! 

*  Lib.  iv.  cap.  11,  sec.  7. 

t  When  one  of  the  presbyters  was  elevated  above  the  rest,  he  says 
in  the  same  work,  lib.  iv.  cap.  2,  that  it  originated  in  an  arrangement 
by  the  Church,  and  not  in  a  divine  appointment,  "  pro  temporum  ne- 
cessitate humano  consensu  inductum."  And  Whitaker  observes, 
Controv.  iv.  quaest.  1,  cap.  2,  "  Dat  quidcin  Calvinus  fuisse  olim  in 
singulis  ecclesiis  episcopos  singulos,  in  provinciis  archiepiscopos  et 
patriarchas,  sed  nullum  his  Calvinus  aut  episcopis  aut  archiepiscopis 
principatum  vel  dominatum  in  rtliquos  fratres  tribuit."  How  much 
is  this  opposed  to  the  representations  of  Calvin's  sentiments,  which 
are  made  by  modern  Episcopalians  ! 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


421 


It  is  plain,  not  only  from  the  testimony  of  Heylin, 
that  similar  sentiments  were  held  by  Beza,  but  from 
Whitgift's  letter  to  him  in  1593,  in  which  he  reminds 
him  that  "  the  same  year,  (1572,)  he  writ  to  Mr.  Knox 
against  the  degree  of  bishops,  however  they  professed 
the  Gospel,  that  the  bishops  brought  forth  the  Papacy, 
that  they  were  bishops  falsely  so  called,  and  were  the 
relicts  of  Popery,"*  as  well  as  from  the  part  which  he 
took  in  drawing  up  the  second  Helvetic  Confession, 
the  declaration  of  which  respecting  the  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  is  exceedingly  explicit.  And 
that  this  account  of  his  views  is  strictly  true,  whatever 
Mr.  Sinclair  or  modern  Episcopalians  may  allege  to 
the  contrary,  is  undeniable.  It  is  placed  beyond  a 
doubt,  by  what  Bancroft  says  in  his  Survey  of  the 
pretended  holy  discipline,  p.  39,  where  he  tells  us,  (and 
if  the  Reformer  had  changed  his  opinion,  it  would 
have  been  known  to  that  keen  and  haughty  prelate, 
and  he  would  have  turned  it  to  his  advantage,)  that 
Beza,  in  his  account  of  the  three  kinds  of  bishops, 
asserts,  that  "  all  bishops,  other  than  such  as  have  an 
equality  amongst  them,  and  such  as  he  alloweth  and 
requireth  that  every  minister  should  be,  must  of  neces- 
sity be  packing."  And  says  Beza  to  Knox,  "  I  wish 
you,  dear  Knox,  (Epist.  77,)  and  the  other  brethren, 
to  bear  this  also  in  mind,  which  is  even  now  passing 
before  our  very  eyes,  that  as  the  bishops  begat  the 
Papacy,  so  the  pseudo  bishops,  the  relicts  of  the  Pa- 
pacy, will  bring  infidelity  into  the  world.  This  pes- 
tilence let  all  avoid  who  wish  the  safety  of  the  Church ; 
and  since  you  have  succeeded  in  banishing  it  from 
Scotland,  never,  I  pray  you,  admit  it  again;  how- 
ever it  may  flatter  you  with  the  specious  pretext  of 
promoting  unity,  which  deceived  many  of  the  an- 
cients, even  the  best  of  them."t 

*  Strype's  Whitgift,  p.  408. 

+  I  quote  his  words  from  Professor  Killen's  translation  of  ttiem, 
(Plea  for  Presbytery,  p.  64,)  as  I  happen  to  have  no  opportunity  at 
present  to  examine  them  in  the  original. 

Even  in  the  most  favourable  slaternent  which  he  makes  about  Epis- 
copacy, he  speaks  of  it  as  a  mere  human  institution.  "Tyrannidis 
non  insimulasse  episcopos  verarn  Christi  rcligioncin  profitentes  et 
docentcs,  atquc  in  hoc  humano  gradu  ita  se  gcrentes,  ut  eo  ad  aedi- 


422 


LETTKRS  ON 


Nor  were  the  sentiments  of  others  of  the  Continen- 
tal Reformers  less  express  and  decided.  Zepper,  in 
his  Treatise  on  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  represents  the 
following  as  the  only  form  of  Episcopacy  which  ex- 
isted in  the  early  Church.  "  Before,"  says  he,  "  the 
tyranny  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  arose  in  the  Church, 
they  chose,  by  the  suffrages  of  all,  one  of  the  ministers 
distinguished  by  his  age,  learning,  zeal,  piety,  ex- 
perience, and  other  spiritual  gifts,  who  being  received, 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  divine  word,  as  a  more 
noble  member  of  the  Churches,  by  a  synod  of  minis- 
ters, and  the  pious  magistrate,  without  assuming  any 
primacy,  superiority,  and  dominion  over  his  colleagues 
and  brethren,  or  claiming  any  exemption  from  the 
order  or  office  of  the  ministry  or  the  laws,  under- 
took the  superintendence  or  principal  care  of  these 
Churches."*  "That  no  one,"  says  Conringius,  "should 
be  allowed  to  teach  or  perform  the  offices  of  religion, 
unless  he  has  been  ordained  by  bishops,  is  enjoined 
by  no  divine  law."t  "  As  long,"  says  Damaeus, 
"  as  the  apostolic  constitution  continued  in  the  Church, 
the  presbyters  that  laboured  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine did  not  differ  at  all  from  bishops.  But  after  that, 
by  the  ambition  of  those  who  presided  over  other 
presbyters,  and  took  to  themselves  the  name  of 
bishops,  the  apostolical  form  and  discipline  was  abol- 

ficationem  ovium  sibi  commissarum  uterentur."  De  Minist  Evangel. 
Grad.  cap.  23. 

The  Oxford  Tractarians  admit  (Tract.  4,  p.  7,)  that  Beza  called 
the  Presbyterian  polity,  which  he  considered  as  "  the  system  handed 
down  from  the  Apostles,  a  divine  episcopate." 

*  "Ante  Pontificis  Romani  tyrannidem  fuisse  in  Ecclesia,  quod 
unum  quendam  ministrnm  aetate,  eruditione,  zelo,  pietate,  experientia, 
aliisque  donis  spiritualibus  praestantiorem  cominunibus  suffragiis 
elegerunt,  qui  secundum  verbi  divini  normam,  et  leges  illi  consen- 
tarieas  asynodo  ministrorum  atque  magistratu  pio,  tanquain  nobiliori 
ecclesiarum  membro,  unanimo  consensu  et  approbatione  receptus  sine 
primatus  cujusdam,  superioritatis  et  dominii  in  collegas  etconfratres 
usurpatione,  aut  e  communi  ministerii  ordine,  officio,  aut  legibus  ex- 
ceptione,  atque  immunitate,  primariam  ecclesiarum  illarum  curam 
humcris  suis  sustineret."    Lib.  ii.  cap.  14. 

+  "Quod  nemini  porro  docere  religiosa  sacra  liceat,  nisi  in  id  ab 
episcopis  fuerit  ordinatus,  non  praefecto  ulla  est  divina  lege  insti- 
tutum."'  Apologia  pro  Reformatione  Evangelica,  published  by  Ger- 
desius  in  his  Scrinium  Antiquarium,  torn.  vi.  pars  2,  p.  694. 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


423 


ished,  then  the  bishops  began  to  be  distinguished 
even  from  these  presbyters  that  preached  the  word, 
and  to  these  bishops,  contrary  to  God's  word,  the 
whole  dignity  was  ascribed,  nothing  thereof  almost 
being  left  to  the  presbyters;  which  thing,  and  the 
ambition  of  the  bishops,  did  in  time  ruin  the  whole 
Church,  as  the  matter  itself  appears  in  the  Papacy. 
And  .so  the  apostolic  episcopate  was  abolished,  and 
a  human  Episcopacy  began,  from  which  sprang  the 
Satanic  Episcopacy,  as  it  is  now  in  the  Papacy."* 
"  Upon  the  same  account,"  says  Chamier,  "  we  may 
likewise  say,  that  equality  among  pastors  is  better  in 
a  certain  respect,  to  wit,  for  avoiding  the  tyranny  of 
a  few  over  the  rest  of  their  brethren,  yea,  of  one  over 
all.  And  how  great  an  evil  tyranny  is,  and  how  wide 
a  door  has  been  opened  to  it  from  the  ambition  of 
this  presidency,  experience  has  long  since  more  than 
sufficiently  proved.  There  is  none  who  doubts  that 
this  custom  (of  investing  one  with  the  presidency)  was 
introduced  by  good  men,  and  with  a  good  design; 
would  to  God  not  rather  from  carnal  prudence,  than 
by  the  direction  of  the  Spirit. "t  And  without  quot- 
ing at  length  the  opinion  of  the  professors  of  Leyden, 
who  say,  (Disput.  42,)  that  "bishops  are  called  such, 
not  with  relation  to  any  supposed  subordinate  bishops 
or  presbyters,  but  to  the  Church  committed  to  their 
care,  in  which  respect  alone  they  have  that  title  in 
Scripture,  and  not  upon  account  of  any  prerogative 
or  authority  which  one  minister  has  over  another /" 
of  Saumur,  who  say,  that  "  pastors  being  in  the  be- 
ginning constituted  by  the  Apostles,  governed  the 
Church  by  common  suffrages,  (communibus  suffragiis, 
communi  solicitudine  et  cura;"  (Thes.  7,  de  divers. 
Minist.  Grad.;)  of  Walleus,  who  declares,  that  "in  all 
the  Scriptures  there  is  no  mention  of  such  eminency 
and  power  of  bishop  over  pastors ;"  (de  Funct.  Eccl.;) 
and  of  Arnoldus,  who  says,  on  Acts  xx .  17,  that 
"  bishops  and  presbyters  are  not  names  of  different 
gifts  in  the  Church,  but  of  one  and  the  same  office;" 


*  Controv.  5,  lib.  i.  cap.  14. 

t  ia..  trat.,  torn.  ii.  lib.  ix.  cap.  14. 


424 


LETTERS  ON 


I  shall  notice  only  further  the  sentiments  of  Zanchius, 
who  is  often  referred  to  by  Episcopalians  as  a  great 
admirer  and  zealous  patron  of  their  ecclesiastical 
polity.  But  it  is  certainly  surprising,  if  this  was 
really  the  case,  that,  as  is  stated  by  Maresius,  Zan- 
chius should  have  declared  "he  could  not  but  love 
the  zeal  of  those  who  hated  the  very  names  of  bishop 
and  archbishop,  being  afraid  that  with  these  names 
the  ancient  ambition  and  tyranny,  with  the  ruin  of 
the  Church,  would  return."*  And  the  Reformer 
himself,  in  his  exposition  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  extent  to  which  he 
could  acknowledge  the  power  of  bishops,  which  dif- 
fers not  only  from  that  which  they  possess  under 
every  form  of  diocesan  Episcopacy  in  the  present  day, 
but  under  every  form  of  it  which  has  existed  in  the 
Church  for  the  last  fourteen  hundred  years.  "  In 
course  of  time,"  says  he,  "  not  long  after  the  Apostles, 
a  practice  obtained  by  which  one  from  among  many 
pastors,  presbyters  and  bishops  was  set  over  the  rest, 
not  as  a  lord,  but  as  a  guide  or  director  to  the  rest  of 
the  seniors,  (or  rulers,)  to  whom  especially  the  care 
of  the  whole  of  any  particular  church  was  committed, 
while  the  rest  were  his  coadjutors  and  colleagues. 
This  practice  was  adopted,  as  Jerome  declares,  that 
schisms  and  dissensions  might  be  prevented,  and  the 
Churches  might  be  preserved  in  a  better  state;  there- 
fore this  institution  and  practice  of  pious  antiquity 
cannot  be  condemned,  provided  the  bishop  does  not 
claim  greater  authority  to  himself  than  the  other 
?ninisters  possess,  as  Jerome  right ly  advises."^  But 

*  Exam.  Prim.  Quaest.  Theolog.,  p.  65.  I  quote  the  words  merely 
to  bear  witness  to  his  opinion,  without  approving  of  his  feelings  about 
the  names. 

t  "  Successu  temporis  non  ita  multo  post  apostolos  obtinuit  con- 
suetudo,  ut  ex  multis  pastoribus,  seu  presbyteris  et  episcopis,  unus 
praeficeretur  reliquis  omnibus,  non  tanquam  dominus,  sed  ut  rector 
reliquis  senatoribus,  cui  imprimis  commendata  esset  cura  totius  ali- 
cujus  ecclesiae;  reliqui  illius  essent  co-adjutores  et  collegae.  Con- 
stitutionem  hanc  faetam  esse  ut  tollerentur  schismata  et  dissensiones, 
ut  Hieronymus  testatur,  meliusque  servarentur  ecclesiae :  idcirco 
damnari  hanc  piae  vetustatis  ordinationem  et  consuetudinem  non 
posse ;  modo  plus  sibi  auctoritatis  non  usurpet  episcopus,  quam  reli- 
qui habent  ministri,  ut  recte  monet  Hieronymus." 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


425 


where  is  the  bishop,  either  in  your  Church,  or  among 
the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  or  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
or  in  any  of  the  other  Episcopalian  Churches,  who 
assumes  no  more  power  in  ordination  or  jurisdic- 
tion than  he  concedes  to  his  presbyters?  And  if, 
as  you  are  well  aware,  there  is  not  a  prelate  on  the 
face  of  the  earth  who  is  content  with  the  measure  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  which  Zanchius  would  give 
him,  is  it  fair  in  Mr.  Sinclair,  in  his  Dissertations  on 
Episcopacy,  or  any  other  advocate  of  your  ecclesias- 
tical polity,  after  the  example  of  Bishop  Prideaux, 
to  claim  for  it  the  sanction  of  this  venerable  Re- 
former? 

I  consider  it  unnecessary  to  prosecute  this  inquiry 
into  the  opinions  of  these  Reformers  to  a  greater  ex- 
tent, as  it  will  be  evident,  I  apprehend,  from  the  pre- 
ceding quotations,  as  well  as  from  the  confessions  of 
their  Churches,  that  you  will  appeal  to  them  in  vain 
in  support  of  the  claims  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  Some 
of  them,  after  proving,  by  the  most  convincing  argu- 
ments, that  it  was  not  instituted  by  God,  but  was  an 
arrangement  of  the  Church  in  the  early  ages,  may 
have  expressed  a  wish,  that  where  it  had  long  existed, 
and  was  associated  with  protestantism,  it  might  still 
be  preserved ;  and  if  any  one  would  prefer  a  form  of 
polity  devised  by  men  to  that  form  of  government 
which  is  delivered  in  the  Scriptures,  it  would  be  wrong 
to  deny  him  all  the  asssistance  in  maintaining  Epis- 
copacy which  he  can  derive  from  their  testimony. 
Nothing,  for  instance,  can  be  more  precise  and  direct, 
than  the  declaration  of  the  sentiments  of  Blondel  re- 
specting the  perfect  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
according  to  the  statement  of  Scripture.  Thus  he  says 
in  his  Apology,  "  If  we  will  listen  to  Jerome,  accord- 
ing to  Scripture  and  the  ancients,  a  presbyter  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop  ;  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  one 
thing ;  the  same  persons  are  called  presbyters  and 
bishops."  Again,  "Whoever,  when  intending  to 
prove  what  kind  of  person  ought  to  be  ordained  a 
presbyter,  describes  him  as  bishop,  decides  purposely 
that  a  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop.    But  the 


426 


LETTERS  ON 


Apostle  does  so  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus.  Therefore 
the  Apostle,  on  purpose,  decides  that  a  presbyter  is 
the  same  as  a  bishop.  Whoever  is  called  upon  to 
feed  the  flock,  and  to  perform  the  duty  of  a  bishop, 
is  really  a  bishop,  and  has  a  title  to  the  name.  But 
presbyters  (Peter  being  witness)  are  required  to  do  so. 
A  presbyter,  therefore,  (Peter  being  witness,)  is  really 
a  bishop,  and  is  entitled  to  the  name.  Whatever  was 
the  government  of  the  church  at  Philippi,  Ephesus, 
Jerusalem,  in  Pontus,  &c.  during  the  age  of  the  Apos- 
tles, was  the  form  of  government  every  where  among 
Christians  of  all  nations.  But  the  government  in  each 
of  these  churches,  during  the  whole  age  of  the  Apostles, 
was  such,  that  the  brethren  in  it  were  subject  to  a 
plurality  of  bishops  and  rulers,  who  governed  it  in 
common.  Therefore  the  government  of  the  Church 
among  Christians  of  all  nations  was  such,  that  the 
brethren  in  each  church  were  subject  to  a  plurality  of 
bishops  and  rulers  acting  together,  who  governed  it 
in  common."*  I  could  easily  quote  many  similar 
passages  from  other  parts  of  his  Apology,  and  show  it 
to  have  been  his  opinion,  that  even  when  bishops 
were  first  introduced,  the  only  pre-eminence  which 
they  possessed  was  that  of  constant  moderators,  and 
that  they  had  nothing  like  the  powers  of  modern 
bishops.  I  am  aware,  however,  that  it  was  reported 
by  Du  Moulin,  that  Blondel  "  concluded  his  Apology 

*  "  Si  Hieronymum  audiamus,  idem  est  presbyter,  qui  et  episco- 
pus ;  episcopus  et  presbyter  unum  sunt,  iidem  presbyteri  et  episcopi 
dicuntur.  Quisquis  qualis  presbyter  debeat  ordinari  probaturus,  cpis- 
copum  describit,  eundem  presbyterum  qui  et  episcopus  sit  ex  professo 
statuit.  Apostolus  Epistola  ad  Titum  qualis  presbyter  ordinari  de- 
beat  probaturus  episcopum  describit.  Ergo  Apostolus  Epistola  ad 
Titum  eundem  presbyterum  et  qui  episcopus  sit,  ex  professo  statuit. 
Cujuscunque  est  pascere  gregem  Dei  et  episcopum  agere,  is  est  veri 
nominis  episcopus.  Atqui  presbyteri  cujuscunque  (Petro  teste)  est 
pascere  gregem  Dei  et  episcopum  agere,  &c.  Qualecunque  ecclesiae 
inter  Philippenses,  Ephesios,  Hierosoly  mil  as,  Ponticos,  &.C.  toto  Apos- 
tolorum  seculo  regimen  fuit,  tale  inter  Christianos  omnes  ubivis  gen- 
tium fuit.  Atqui  tale  ecclesiae  inter  Philippenses,  Ephesios,  Hiero- 
solymitas,  Ponticos,  &.c.  toto  Aposlolorum  seculo  regimen  fuit,  ut 
pluribus  una  episcopis,  praepositis,  ifcc.  subjiceretur  fraternitas,  qui 
earn  in  commune  regerent.  Ergo  tale  inter  Christianos  omnes  ubivis 
gentium  regimen  fuit,  &.c.  Apology,  p.  3  and  4.  See,  too,  his  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  Observations,  p.  7,  besides  many  other  passages. 


PTJSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


427 


with  words  to  this  purpose.  "By  all  that  we  have 
said  to  assert  the  rights  of  the  presbyter,  we  do  not 
intend  to  invalidate  the  ancient  and  apostolical  con- 
stitution (he  calls  sometimes  what  is  ancient,  apos- 
tolical) of  episcopal  pre-eminence.  But  we  believe, 
that  wheresoever  it  is  established  conformably  to  the 
ancient  canons,  it  must  be  carefully  preserved;  and 
wheresoever  by  some  heat  of  contention,  or  otherwise, 
it  has  been  put  down,  or  violated,  it  ought  to  be  rev- 
erently restored."  It  is  alleged,  however,  that  he 
was  prevailed  with  by  some  of  the  agents  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  to  erase  them ;  and  upon  Du 
Moulin's  stating  this  to  Blondel's  brother  in  London, 
and  requesting  him  to  write  to  Mr.  D.  Blondel,  and 
inquire  whether  it  was  true,  "he  did  not  fail"  to  do 
so;  "and  then,"  says  he,  "in  three  or  four  weeks 
after,  he  showed  me  a  letter  from  him,  wherein  he 
remembered  his  love  to  me,  and  acknowledged  that 
that  relation  was  true."  Now,  upon  this  extraordi- 
nary statement,  which  is  quoted  continually  by  ihe 
advocates  of  Episcopacy,  I  remark,  in  the  first  place, 
that  it  is  certainly  very  wonderful  this  letter  was  never 
published,  which  would  have  removed  completely 
all  doubt  upon  the  subject;  and  as  this  never  was 
the  case,  though  Durel  and  others  brought  forward 
every  letter  from  the  foreign  divines  which  favoured 
them  in  the  least,  it  appears  to  me  unaccountable. 
Besides,  though  Mr.  John  Blondel  was  living  in  Lon- 
don, not  a  single  individual  has  ever  been  mentioned, 
even  by  any  Episcopalian,  as  having  seen  this  letter, 
but  Du  Moulin  himself,  whose  zeal  for  Episcopacy 
was  of  no  ordinary  kind,  and  who  would  be  one  of 
the  very  last,  if  there  was  really  such  a  letter  contain- 
ing these  words,  to  keep  it  a  secret;  and,  2dly,  admit- 
ting that  there  was  actually  such  a  letter,  though  the 
world  has  never  seen  it,  all  that  it  would  amount  to 
would  be  merely  this,  to  stultify  Blondel,  and  demon- 
strate his  inconsistency,  but  not  to  answer  his  power- 
ful and  irresistible  reasoning.  I  have  showed  you 
that  he  considered  presbyters  and  bishops  to  be  per- 
fectly the  same  in  name  and  power  during  the  whole 


428 


LETTERS  ON 


apostolic  age,  and  declared  that  every  Christian  Church 
was  governed  at  that  time  by  a  common  council  of 
presbyters,  who  were  bishops.  And  as  you  cannot 
suppose  that  he  believed  in  two  apostolic  constitutions 
existing  at  once,  it  is  plain,  that  when  he  represents 
primitive  Episcopacy  by  that  name,  he  could  intend 
only  to  tell  us  that  it  was  ancient,  according  to  a  fre- 
quent use  of  that  expression.  Episcopacy,  however, 
as  described  by  him,  when  it  was  first  introduced,  was 
very  different  from  yours,  or  that  of  the  Scottish  Epis- 
copalians ;  and  if  he  was  really  chargeable  with  such 
gross  inconsistency  as  that  which  is  imputed  to  him 
by  modern  Episcopalians,  I  shall  leave  it  to  you,  or 
Bishop  Russel,  or  Mr.  Sinclair,  to  estimate  the  re- 
spect which  is  due  to  his  opinion,  and  allow  you, 
without  a  grudge,  all  the  assistance  which  it  can  ren- 
der to  your  cause. 

Nothing,  too,  can  be  more  groundless  than  the  re- 
port which  was  formerly  circulated  by  Episcopalians, 
and  which  has  been  repeated  of  late  by  some  of  the 
most  eminent  and  influential  of  your  prelates,  that  it 
was  necessity  alone,  and  not  choice  or  principle,  which 
prevented  the  Protestant  Churches  on  the  Continent 
from  having  diocesan  bishops.  So  far  was  this  from 
being  the  case,  that  it  is  not  only  affirmed,  but  proved 
by  testimony  which  cannot  be  set  aside,  to  have  been 
directly  the  reverse.  "  M.  du  Plessis,"  says  Jeremy 
Taylor,  in  his  Episcopacy  asserted,  p.  191,  "a  man 
of  honour  and  great  learning,  attests,  that  at  the  first 
Reformation,  there  were  many  archbishops  and  car- 
dinals in  Germany,  France  and  Italy,  &c.  that  joined 
in  the  Reformation,  whom  they  might,  but  did  not 
employ  in  their  ordinations.  And,  therefore,  what 
necessity  can  be  pretended  in  this  case,  I  would  fain 
learn,  that  I  may  make  their  defence.  For  the  Dutch 
Church,  let  the  celebrated  Gisbert  Voet  be  heard.  Nos, 
says  he,  qui  ordine  illo  episcoporum  caremus,  neque 
etiam  indigemus,  ab  Anglicanis,  aut  Germanis  ordi- 
nationem  in  forma  petere  semper  potuimus;  neque  illi 
negarent.  De  Desp.  Caus.  Papatus,  lib.  ii.  sect.  1, 
p.  110.    He  says,  they  could  have  had  episcopal  or- 


PUSEVITE  EPISCOPACY. 


429 


dinations  if  they  would,  but  thought  they  needed  it 
not,  and  therefore  would  hardly  have  taken  it  kindly 
of  any  one,  that  would  have  pleaded  for  them  that 
they  would  have  had  it,  (as  the  present  Bishop  of 
London  says,)  if  they  could.  For  the  French  Church 
let  Peter  du  Moulin's  letter  to  Bishop  Andrews  be 
considered;  where,  excusing  himself  for  not  making 
the  difference  between  bishops  and  presbyters  to 
be  of  divine  appointment,  he  pleads,  that  if  he  had 
laid  the  difference  on  that  foundation,  the  French 
Churches  would  have  silenced  him;  which  doth  not 
argue  that  concern  among  them  for  bishops,  as  would 
be  requisite  before  such  a  plea  from  necessity  were 
allowed  them.  And  I  have  been  credibly  informed, 
that  the  French  King  was  so  earnest  with  them  to  ad- 
mit bishops  among  them,  that  they  durst  not  desire 
an  English  bishop  to  preach  there,  though  they  ad- 
mitted him  to  communicate."  Nor  would  there  have 
been  the  smallest  difficulty  in  procuring  funds  for  the 
maintenance  of  bishops,  either  in  France,  where  at 
one  time  a  great  number  both  of  the  nobility  and 
gentry  were  Protestants;  or  in  Holland,  where  it 
would  have  been  the  form  of  polity  adopted  by  the 
State;  or  in  Saxony,  Prussia,  or  Hesse  Cassel,  as  well 
as  other  countries,  where  it  would  have  been  sup- 
ported by  the  Sovereign;  so  that  on  what  ground  it 
can  be  alleged,  as  is  done  at  present  by  some  of  the 
zealous  friends  of  Episcopacy,  who  are  anxious  to  ex- 
tend it  among  these  Protestant  Churches,  that  it  was 
necessity  alone  which  prevented  them  from  estab- 
lishing it,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand.  And  my  sur- 
prise is  increased,  when  I  see  it  declared  in  the  18th 
chapter  of  the  Helvetic,  the  thirtieth  Article  of  the 
French,  and  the  thirty-first  Article  of  the  Belgic  Con- 
fession, that  according  to  the  Scriptures  all  the  minis- 
ters of  the  word  "have  equal  power  and  authority, 
(una  et  aequalis  potestas  et  functio,  eadem  et  aequali 
inter  se  potestate  praeditos,  eandem  et  aequalem  turn 
potestatem,  turn  autoritatem  omnes,  habeant;")  in 
the  first  Article  of  the  National  Synod  at  Einbden, 
that  "no  minister  is  to  exercise  any  authority  over 


430 


LETTERS  ON 


another;"  in  the  Wirtemburg  Confession,  that  "a 
bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  the  same;"  in  the  first 
Danish  Confession,  that  "  true  bishops  or  priests  are 
all  the  same;"  and  in  the  Articles  of  Smalkald,  that 
"by  divine  right  there  is  no  difference  between  a 
bishop  and  a  pastor  or  presbyter,  and  therefore  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  ordination  of  fit  ministers  by 
pastors  is  ratified  and  approved  by  divine  authority;" 
my  surprise,  I  say,  is  increased,  on  the  supposition 
that  they  were  honest  and  upright  men,  that  they 
would  have  introduced  these  statements  into  their 
public  Formularies,  or  suffered  them  to  remain,  if 
nothing  but  necessity  kept  them  from  adopting  dio- 
cesan bishops. 

I  have  only  further  to  add,  that  as  you  have  intro- 
duced one  order  into  the  Christian  ministry,  or  that  of 
bishops,  for  which  you  have  never  yet  produced  any 
warrant  from  Scripture,  so  you  have  changed  entirely 
another  order,  or  that  of  deacons.  In  the  primitive 
Church  they  were  instituted  to  serve  the  tables  of  the 
poor,  (Acts  vi.,)  and  no  other  office  was  ever  assigned 
to  them,  though  Philip,  having  executed  the  office  of 
a  deacon  well,  obtained  for  himself  "  a  good  degree," 
and  was  promoted  to  be  an  Evangelist.  But  in  your 
Church,  and  that  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  they 
are  allowed  not  only  to  preach,  but  to  baptize,  and 
are  relieved,  I  believe,  from  the  care  of  the  poor. 
But  this,  as  Dr.  Whitby  candidly  acknowledges,  is  a 
deviation  from  the  practice  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
and  an  innovation  on  its  constitution.  "  The  an- 
cients," says  he,  in  his  sermon  on  Mat.  xii.  7,  "  were 
so  far  from  believing  this,  that  they  expressly  forbade 
all  deacons  to  baptize,  and  introduce  this  as  a  prohibi- 
tion laid  on  them  on  this  very  account,  that  baptism 
was  an  office  belonging  only  to  the  priesthood."  "A 
deacon,"  say  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  "doth  not 
baptize,  or  offer."  And  again,  "it  is  not  lawful  for  a 
deacon  to  offer  sacrifice,  or  to  baptize."  And  again, 
"we  permit  only  a  presbyter  to  teach,  to  offer,  and  to 
baptize."  See  this  fully  proved  by  Cotelerius,  in  his 
notes  on  the  word  ii^atiicai,  p.  206,  207,  where  he 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


431 


introduceth  an  old  author  saying,  that  if  baptism,  in 
case  of  necessity,  be  performed  by  tlie  minor  clergy, 
we  expect  the  event,  that  what  is  wanting  either 
should  be  supplied  by  us,  or  reserved  to  be  supplied 
by  our  Lord.  The  baptism,  therefore,  of  deacons, 
which  is  now  commonly  in  use  among  us,  can  only 
be  of  human  institution.  It  was  permitted  only  in 
the  third  century,  from  which  time  till  the  Reforma- 
tion even  laymen  were  allowed  to  baptize  in  cases  of 
necessity;  and  if  any  thing  be  wanting  to  that  baptism 
in  those  cases,  we  have  like  reason  to  believe  it  will 
be  supplied  by  our  Lord."*  What  reason  the  doctor 
could  have  for  entertaining  that  belief,  when  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  is  performed  by  a  deacon,  either  in 
your  Church  or  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians, 
while  no  power  to  administer  it  is  given  to  him  in 
Scripture,  I  cannot  conceive ;  and  if  he  exercise  a  power 
not  contained  in  the  commission  bestowed  on  him  by 
the  only  Head  of  the  Church,  it  suggests  unquestion- 
ably very  serious  considerations  to  the  members  of 
all  Episcopalian  Churches,  when  they  apply  to  him 
for  baptism  to  their  infant  children.  How  yon  will 
be  able  to  remedy  that  defect,  I  cannot  tell.  "  We 
permit  none  of  the  clergy  to  baptize,"  say  the  Apos- 
tolic Constitutions,  "but  only  bishops  and  presbyters." 
But  you  permit  those  who  have  no  right  to  do  it  to 
administer  that  ordinance.  The  Russians  formerly,  as 
is  mentioned  by  Reuss,  used  to  re-baptize  all  who 
joined  their  communion  ;t  and  when  the  daughter  of 
Christian  the  Fourth  of  Denmark,  who  had  been 
betrothed  to  the  Grand  Duke  in  1643,  refused  to  be 
re-baptized,  the  marriage  was  broken  off".  But  what 
will  you  do  in  the  case  of  these  individuals  who  were 
baptized  by  deacons  in  their  early  days,  and  who 

*  "  Their  deacons,"  says  Archbishop  Whately,  of  the  churches  in 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  "appear  to  have  had  an  office  considerably 
different  from  those  of  our  Church." — Essays  on  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  p.  131. 

t  "Olim,"  says  he  in  his  Dissertatio  Historico-Theologica  de 
Ecclesia  Ruthenica,  p.  335,  "  ne  baptisma  quidem  extra  suam  et 
Graecoruin  ecclesiam  susceptum  legitimum  et  validum  arrogantis- 
sime  opinati  sunt,"  &c. 


432 


LETTERS  OJT 


have  never  been  re-baptized?  I  trust  that  Bishop 
Russel,  instead  of  repeating  those  trite  objections  to 
what  he  is  pleased  to  denominate  the  office  of  lay- 
presbyters,  which  have  been  frequently  answered, 
will  direct  his  attention  to  this  perplexing  question, 
and  point  out  the  way  in  which  baptisms  received  by 
innumerable  individuals  from  the  hands  of  men,  who, 
as  Jerome  remarks,  "  were  only  the  ministers  of  the 
tables."  and  who  had  no  right  to  perform  them,  may 
be  most  effectually  remedied. 

There  are  several  other  topics  of  considerable  mo- 
ment, to  which  I  was  desirous  to  advert,  but  I  must 
close  this  discussion.  I  hope  that  nothing  which  has 
been  said  in  these  Letters  will  be  construed  by  any 
one  as  implying  a  doubt  that  I  do  not  look  upon  your 
Church  as  a  Christian  Church,  or  that  I  am  insensible 
to  the  great  and  important  services  which,  especially 
at  the  period  of  the  memorable  Revolution,  along 
with  the  Church  to  which  I  have  the  honour  to 
belong,  she  rendered  to  the  cause  of  our  common 
Protestantism.  I  have  noticed  her  defects,  but  I  have 
far  greater  pleasure  in  acknowledging  her  worth ; 
and  while  you  compare  myself  and  the  other  ministers 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  well  as  the  ministers  of 
the  other  Presbyterian  Churches  in  our  native  land, 
to  the  priests  of  Samaria,  I  concede  most  willingly  to 
your  sound  and  pious  bishops  and  clergy  the  honour- 
able character  of  ministers  of  Christ.  But  how,  upon 
your  principles,  you  can  claim  that  honourable  cha- 
racter to  yourself,  or  grant  it  to  any  other  minister  of 
your  Church,  or  consider  her  as  a  Church,  or  cherish 
any  sure  and  certain  hope  of  the  salvation  of  a  single 
individual  within  her  pale,  or  of  a  single  individual 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  of  any  individual  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  I  cannot  perceive.  May  she  not 
only  seek,  but  attain  that  more  thorough  and  impor- 
tant Reformation  which  was  intended  by  Edward, 
and  longed  for  by  Cranmer,  and  of  which  there  is  an 
admirable  outline  in  the  Reformatio  Legum,  which 
was  drawn  up  by  that  great  and  illustrious  prelate, 
and  the  other  commissioners  who  were  appointed  by 


PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 


433 


that  young  and  enlightened  Prince.  Would  to  God 
that  her  Professors  of  Theology  could  adopt  in  some 
measure  the  language  of  Dr.  Prideaux,  when  he  said 
to  James  the  First,  a  few  years  before  his  death, 
"  Within  the  last  nine  years  Oxford  has  sent  forth 
seventy-three  Doctors  in  Divinity,  and  more  than  one 
hundred  and  eighty-three  Batchelours  in  that  sacred 
science.  I,  as  your  Majesty's  Professor  of  Divinity, 
had  the  honour  of  being  concerned  in  conferring  these 
degrees;  and  I  can  confidently  affirm,  that  all  these 
two  hundred  and  fifty-three  divines,  and  more,  are 
warm  detesters  of  Popery,  remote  from  favouring 
Arminianism,"  though  I  have  no  wish  they  should 
add,  "strong  disapprovers  of  Puritanism,"*  if  by  that 
term  be  meant  Presbyterianism.  May  purity  of  doc- 
trine distinguish  her  ministrations,  and  a  spirit  of 
piety  and  Christian  benevolence  extend  its  influence 
throughout  all  her  parishes;  that  Ephraim  may  no 
more  vex  Judah,  nor  Judah  vex  Ephraim ;  and  that 
while  the  ministers  of  Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian 
Churches  differ  from  each  other  on  certain  points,  it 

*  "  Intra  proxime  elapsum  novennium,  obstetrieante  pro  modulo 
meo  qualicunque  profcssoris  tui  conatu,"  &c. 

If  the  directions  contained  in  the  Reformatio  Lcgum  Ecclesiasti- 
carum,  prepared  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Knox,  and  the  rest  of  the 
thirty-two  commissioners  of  King  Edward,  were  followed  out,  the 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  would,  like  the  Scottish  Presbyte- 
rian ministers,  have  ruling  elders,  or  as  they  call  them,  lay  elders,  to 
assist  them  in  exercising  a  kind  and  prudent  oversight  of  their 
parishioners.  Would  not  this  be  a  benefit  ?  But  what  would  Bishop 
Russel  say  of  it,  after  the  note  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Sermon  on 
Lay  Presbyters? 

Besides  what  Cranmer  proposed  in  the  Reformatio  Lcgum,  Strype 
informs  us,  that  when  the  monasteries  were  proposed  to  be  dissolved, 
"  the  Archbishop  is  said  to  have  counselled  and  pressed  the  King  to 
it,  but  for  other  ends  than  the  former  had  in  view,  viz.  that  out  of 
the  revenues  of  these  monasteries  the  King  might  found  more  bishop, 
rics;  and  that  dioceses  being  reduced  into  less  compass,  the  dioce- 
sans might  the  better  discharge  their  office,  according  to  Scripture 
and  primitive  rules."—  Life  of  Cranmer,  p.  35. 

28 


434  LETTERS  ON  PUSEYITE  EPISCOPACY. 

may  be  with  feelings  of  mutual  kindness  and  forbear- 
ance, and  it  may  still  be  said, 

"  See  how  these  Christians  love  one  another." 

I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 

Yours,  &c. 


THE  END. 


